Syntax of the English language: the verbal

system (tense, mood and aspect)

Contemporary linguistics is influenced by an extensive, and growing, body of research and plentiful
theoretical orientations. Grammar is no exception, and can be approached from an array of different
perspectives, including structuralist-traditionalwhich seems to permeate the mainstream views
and others such as generative, systemic-functional and cognitive perspectives, each of which
presents descriptions of language according to models and frameworks developed in consonance
with the theories and assumptions they espouse.

As shown by recent important publications on the grammar of English (Biber et al., 2002; Biber et al.,
1999; Bielak & Pawlak, 2013; Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Payne, 2007; and others), scholars draw
on this richness of perspectives, sometimes in combination, to produce reference work. Given the
diversity of stands, the plurality of orientations and the multiple interpretations to which these can
give rise, at least some degree of divergence is only to be expected. However, the emerging
discrepancies can potentially lead to confusion, and one needs to decide which orientation to follow.

In the case of the verbal system of English, especially regarding tense mode and aspect, an
elucidative example of discrepancy can be found in relation to the classification of modal auxiliary
verbs. While Huddlestone and Pullum (2002) classify will and shall as modal auxiliary verbs, will
appears in Payne (2007) as a tense auxiliary. The implication is that according to Payne, English has
an analytic future tense (see page 237), while Huddlestone and Pullum claim that English has no
future tense at all (see page 52). The approach presented by Payne (2007) seems particularly
favourable, considering pedagogical applications, and will be adopted to guide this paper.

Tense