Paper Presented in the 7th International Congress on English Grammar, Organized by Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam
TEACHING TENSE CONCEPT FROM ONE LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER
Introduction
Tense, as we all know, is a grammatical category whereas the time is semantic notion. It can be interpreted that as far as the semantics is concerned, there are three times namely, present, past and future. Of course, for all these three semantic notions, three different markers are employed to represent these concepts in most of the languages. But not all the languages have such distinguished markers to denote these concepts. Like in Old Tamil, there were only two kinds of tenses – past and nonpast – to stand for these three time concepts. Here the nonpast includes present and future. But in the later period only the marker for present tense was developed. On the other hand, in modern Tamil, we are using three tenses to indicate these three semantic concepts. Nevertheless, concerning the tense system in the languages, English uses the present tense marker to represent the habitual notion whereas such semantic notion is realized by sentence which involves the future tense marker in Tamil. Thus this paper attempts to give an account of such notions briefly in order to explain the tense system in both the languages from the teaching point of view.
Tense, as we all know, is a grammatical category whereas the time is semantic notion. It can be interpreted that as far as the semantics is concerned, there are three times namely, present, past and future. Of course, for all these three semantic notions, three different markers are employed to represent these concepts in most of the languages. But not all the languages have such distinguished markers to denote these concepts. Like in Old Tamil, there were only two kinds of tenses – past and nonpast – to stand for these three time concepts. Here the nonpast includes present and future. But in the later period only the marker for present tense was developed. On the other hand, in modern Tamil, we are using three tenses to indicate these three semantic concepts. Nevertheless, concerning the tense system in the languages, English uses the present tense marker to represent the habitual notion whereas such semantic notion is realized by sentence which involves the future tense marker in Tamil. Thus this paper attempts to give an account of such notions briefly in order to explain the tense system in both the languages from the teaching point of view.
Habitual Notion
For instance, for the English sentence, The Sun rises in the East, which involves the present tense marker grammatically, the most corresponding sentence cuuriyan kilakkee utikkiRatu is not more relevant expression in Tamil: rather, it should be cuuriyan kilakkee utikkum. The reason is that the proposition of the whole sentence expresses the timeless truth. More accurately, one can claim that the habitual sense should, mostly, be indicated by the present marker in English but not by the same tense marker in Tamil; instead, the future marker is used to denote the habitual notion in Tamil. In the same way, to indicate the ‘inductive truth’, the present form is, in general, used in English while the future form is attested to express this semantic notion in Tamil (as in sentence, eNNai niiril mitakkum (Oil floats on water). Malayalam, too, uses the future form to indicate such notion (as is shown in sentence, eNNa veLLattil poŋŋum).
On the other hand, assuming that there is a context where someone is coming. For the Tamil sentence, avan varukiRaan, the equivalent English sentence may be he is coming, rather he comes. Grammatically speaking, the Tamil sentence and the second sentence of English here are more closely related and correspondingly perfect. In other words, both the sentences have the present tense marker grammatically. But, with regard to semantics, the usage is different from grammar in some cases despite not in all the cases. So it should be taught carefully in every situation in those languages. Or else, the learner makes mistakes without understanding these conceptual strategies. So such strategies have to be taught properly as a result of which the learners can understand the proper knowledge about the tense system in both the languages.
Orientation Time
“Temporal reference involves three times, Orientation Time, Reference Time and Event Time: for independent sentence, Orientation Time (OT) in English is Speech Time”, Smith (1981:215) views. That is, three times are needed to account for temporal reference in languages such as English, because sentences may refer to three different times. According to him, ‘sentences are oriented to speech time (ST) and may indicate a reference time that is simultaneous with or sequential to ST. Reference time (RT) corresponds to account for some cases; Event Time (ET) may be simultaneous with or sequential to RT’, according to Reichenbach (1947).
RT & ET ST
O O For instance, take the sentence in Tamil, Sita neeRRu vantaaL, (Sita came yesterday), in which the event time is simultaneous with reference time; both of them precede the speech time because RT is past. On the other hand, for the sentence, Sita naaLai varuvaaL, the diagramme would be the one given below:
ST RT & ET
O O In this case, the speech time precedes the reference time and event time. In this context, there will be no hurdle for the learners of both languages because in both the languages structure is one and the same. But in some cases, it would be difficult for the learners to understand the structure of one language to another for single semantic notion. For instance, the sentence in English like He is coming is, in one sense, interpreted as avan vantukoNTirukkiRaan in Tamil. This is the parallel structure of English, of course. However, in another sense, we are not able to translate like that. For example, the parallel sequence for the sentence like He is coming tomorrow in English is not the sentence like avan naaLai vantukoNTirukkiRaan in Tamil. Even in Malayalam, such type of sentence is not possible. But the equalent sentence for this semantic structure is avan naaLai varukiRaan without the progressive marker.
Event Time
Consider the sentence in Tamil, Bhaarat varumpootu Kiran tuuŋkikkoNTiruntaan (Kiran was sleeping when Bharat came). In this sentence, there are two events taken place, as far as the actions are concerned. But both the events have, in one sense, completed before speech time, of course. In these two events, one is progressive whereas the other one is non-progressive. Here progressive activity is represented by ET2 and the non-progressive by ET1. It can be explained diagrammatically:
ET1 ST
ET2
As already told, both the events are past and therefore both are represented by the past marker in this sentence. However, as far as the durative notion is concerned, the durative action (ET2) is expressed by the progressive marker while the other event (ET1) by only the simple past in English. With regard to aspect, the same nature almost prevails in Tamil, too, except tense marker in embedded sentence. So the teaching materials should make clear such points to the learners of both the languages. Almost, one and the same structure is attested in Malayalam like Bharat varumpooL Kiran uRaŋŋukayaayirunnu, (Kiran was sleeping when Bharat came), as in Tamil. In the same way, we can explain past perfect in English. Take, for example, the sentence in Tamil, Bhaarat varum munpee Kiran vantiruntaan (Kiran had come before Bharat came).
ET1 ET2 ST
Here the Kiran’s coming is represented by ET1 and Bharat’s coming by ET2. Therefore, the first action (ET1) in the Matrix sentence gets past perfect tense whereas the second action (ET2) in the subordinate clause gets simple past in both the languages. But both have taken place before speech time. So the way in which teaching should be semantic oriented, rather than the word by word, will enable the learners to improve their learning quality in the language someone is learning.
Past-in-Future
Consider the sentences in Tamil and Malayalam, respectively, nii vanta piRaku tuuŋkuveen and taan vannu kaliññiTTu ñaan uRaŋŋum (I will sleep after you will come (here)). As far as the semantics is concerned, the time of action ‘coming’ is future with reference to the situation of the speech act; however, it has past tense marker morphologically in the subordinate clause of the sentence. That is, its tense is past-in-future. In this respect, the past is oriented to the time expressed by the higher sentence whereas the future is oriented to the time at which the utterance is made. Conversely, in other sentence in Tamil, nii varummunpee tuuŋkineen (I had slept before you came), the tense specified by the subordinate clause here is future–in–past. (Here the future is anchored to the time interpreted by the main clause but the past is anchored to the situation of the utterance). One and the same structure like taan varunnatinu munpee ñaan uRaŋŋi is in Malayalam, too. Nevertheless, such a future sense does not extend to the moment of speaking. Here it is understood that the structures in Tamil and Malayalam are almost the same but its structure of English is different. Thus the tense in subordinate clause of Tamil and Malayalam is past unlike in English. Such a semantic notion and its parallel structure should be taught carefully to the learners of both the languages.
Habitual-Past-Action:
To express the habitual-past-action, which means that an action’ was regular in the past but does not prolong at the time of speech, English uses the forms like ‘used to’ whereas Tamil uses the future form associated with the past referential adverb in a sentence, munnaaTiyellaam Kiran aŋku varuvaan, (Kiran used to come there in the past). Considering the markers used in these languages, there is no one to correspondent in the constructions. One language uses the future marker whereas other language employs entirely different form. The equalent sentence of Malayalam for this Tamil sentence may be paNTokke Kiran aviTe varumaayirunnu /*varum (Kiran used to come there in the past). We are not able to use the simple future form in Malayalam, as is used in Tamil. Instead, Malayalam language uses the aspectual form, aayirunnu. Therefore, we have to teach the grammatical elements only after knowing the semantic notion of the sentence in the individual language. So it is better to know the proposition of the sentence first and then proceed to teach something.
Bibliography
Comrie, B. 1985. Tense. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston, R. 1969. Some Observations on Tense and Deixis in English. Language-45 (777 -806).
Scheffer, J. 1975. The Progressive in English. Amsterdam : North Holland.
Smith, C. S. 1981. Semantic and Syntactic Constraints on Temporal Interpretation. In Syntax and Semantics (Tense and Aspect). Volume-14. New York : Academic Press.
Lado, Rabert. 1979. Language Teaching – A Scientific Approach, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi.
@@&&@@
