Distinction of types of pronouns

There are many examples in English pronouns of the same phonetic unit used to express different meanings in different contexts. So the question arises whether this is a case of polysemy, that is, different meanings of the same word, or of homonymy, that is, different words sounding alike. We may state the following cases in point: that demonstrative and that relative; who interrogative and who relative; which interrogative and which relative; myself (and the other self -pronouns) reflexive, and the same pronouns intensive (non-reflexive).

That seems to be the easiest of the problems to settle, as we can apply the test of the plural form here. The demonstrative that has a plural form those, whereas the relative that remains unchanged in the plural.

It is obvious that the that which remains unchanged in the plural cannot be the same word as the that which has the plural form those. So we arrive at the conclusion that there are two different pronouns: that (relative) and that / those (demonstrative, parallel to this).

With the other pronouns mentioned above no criterion of this kind can be applied, as they, none of them, have any special plural form. So, if that question is to be solved at all, we shall have to look for criteria of a different kind, which may not prove so decisive as the one we applied in the case of that.

We shall have to rely on meaning and syntactical function. It is not hard to distinguish between the interrogative and the relative meaning in the pronouns who, what, and which. It is also evident that the relative who, what, and which can introduce subordinate clauses. However, it is not so easy to say whether the pronoun what is interrogative or relative in a sentence like the following: I know what you mean. On the one hand the meaning of the pronoun what seems to be the same as in the sentence I know what

¹ And of course also by the alternation [f]/[v], just as in the nouns s helf/shelves, wolf/wolves, etc. This is irrelevant here.

The Pronoun 71

has happened (a so-called indirect question), where it is obviously interrogative. On the other hand, it can hardly be denied that what may be taken here as equivalent to that which and as connecting the subordinate clause with the main clause. ¹ Since no clear distinction can be established, it seems unjustified to separate the two and to say that they are homonyms. More or less similar considerations apply to the other cases enumerated on page 70. We will therefore speak of "the pronoun himself", etc., without distinguishing "the reflexive pronoun himself" and "the emphatic pronoun himself". ²

LIMITS OF THE PRONOUN CLASS

The limits of the pronoun class are somewhat difficult to define. That is, there are words which have some pronominal features, without being full pronouns, or, even, have other features which are not pronominal at all. We may take the word many as a case in point.

Many is in several respects similar in meaning and function to the pronouns some and several; -cf. some children, some of the children, some of them; several children, several of the children, several of them; many children, many of the children, many of them. In this respect many differs from adjectives, which of course cannot be followed by the group "of + noun or pronoun". That would favour the view that many belongs to the pronoun class. On the other hand, however, many has an important characteristic which separates it from pronouns and brings it together with adjectives; it has degrees of comparison: more, (the) most. No pronoun has degrees of comparison, and indeed the pronouns some and several, which stand so close to many in other respects, cannot form such degrees. So, in determining the part of speech to which many belongs we have to decide which of its characteristics is more essential, unless we prefer to state that many, few, much and little are hybrids, partaking both of pronouns and of adjectives. Since the choice of the more essential feature remains somewhat arbitrary, the conclusion on the word many may be affected by it. If, for example, we decide that the morphological feature is more essential, we will say that many is an adjective, but we shall have to add that it shares some vital syntactical features with pronouns.

Another case in point is the word certain. When used as a predicative it is of course an adjective, as in the sentence, We were

¹ For a general theory of subordinate clauses, see Chapter XXXIV.

² The question of polysemy and homonymy of words is of course a lexicological, not a grammatical, question. We only touched on it here because we have to express a view of these words when we speak of their grammatical peculiarities.

72 The Pronoun and the Numeral

quite certain of the fact. Things are different, however, when certain is used as an attribute standing before a noun and has a meaning much the same as some, e. g. There are certain indications that this is true, or, A certain Mr Brown wants to see you. The question arises, is this the same word, the adjective certain as in the first sentence, or is it a pronoun? Here, too, we should apply some objective tests. One of the peculiarities of the word is that it can be preceded by the indefinite article, which generally is not the case with pronouns. ¹ We must also find out whether certain can be followed by the group "of + noun or pronoun". If no such examples are met with, we shall have to conclude that there are no sufficient reasons to class certain with the pronouns, in spite of the peculiar meaning it has in such sentences.

Other problems of this kind would have to be treated along similar lines.

THE NUMERAL

With numerals, even more than with pronouns, it is difficult to keep the strictly grammatical approach and not to let oneself be diverted into lexicological considerations. O. Jespersen has quite rightly remarked that numerals have been treated by grammarians in a different way from other parts of speech. This is what he says, "...the grammarian in this chapter on numerals does what he never dreamed of doing in the two previous chapters (those on nouns and adjectives. — B. I.), he gives a complete and orderly enumeration of all the words belonging to this class." ²

It seems therefore all the more necessary to stick to the grammatical aspect of things when dealing with this particular category of words. What, indeed, ought to be said about numerals from a grammatical viewpoint?

There are no grammatical categories to be discussed in numerals. There is no category of number, nor of case, nor any other morphological category. The numerals are, to all intents and purposes, invariable. So there is only the function of numerals to be considered, and also possibilities of their substantivisation.

The most characteristic function of numerals is of course that of an attribute preceding its noun. However a numeral can also perform other functions in the sentence (it can be subject, predicative, and object) if the context makes it clear what objects are meant, as in: We are seven, Of the seven people 1 was looking for I found only three.

¹ A special ease is another; here the indefinite article has become an integral part of the pronoun in the singular.

² O. Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, p. 37.

The Numeral 73

An ordinal numeral can also be modified by an infinitive denoting the action in which the object mentioned occupies a definite place; a characteristic example of this usage is, He was the first to come.

The numerals, both cardinal and ordinal, share certain peculiarities of syntactic construction with pronouns. Cf., e. g., five children, five of the children, five of them; some children, some of the children, some of them; also the first travellers, the first of the travellers, the first of them. This, however, does not seem a sufficient reason for uniting pronouns and numerals into one part of speech, and such a union has not so far been proposed. ¹

¹ Academician L. Sšerba proposed in his paper on parts of speech in Russian to establish a part of speech called quantitative words (количественные слова), which would include both cardinal numerals and words such as many, several, etc. He has not been followed in this by any other scholar. (See Л. В. Щерба, О частях речи в русском языке. Избранные работы по русскому языку, стр. 73.)

Chapter VII

THE STATIVE

It has been pointed out above (pp. 29—30) that the essence of the words asleep, afloat, astir, ablaze, etc. and their position in the system of parts of speech is still under discussion. We take the view that they constitute a special part of speech, which may be called "stative" and is characterised by the prefix a-.

Now we will consider some grammatical problems concerning the statives.

SYNTACTICAL FUNCTIONS

The main function of the statives is that of predicative and in this case they are preceded by a link verb, most usually the verb be, but occasionally also fall, keep, feel. Examples with the link verb be are very numerous and varied. A few will suffice: The child was fast asleep. The whole house was astir. Something is afoot. With the link verb fall we find the stative asleep, as in the sentence He soon fell asleep. The link verb keep is found with statives, e. g. in ...but in a crafty madness keeps aloof. (SHAKESPEARE) The link verb feel is found in the sentence He felt ashamed of himself... (LINKLATER)

Statives are also occasionally found in the function of objective predicatives, particularly after the verb find or have and a noun or pronoun, as in the sentences He found his sister alone. (LINK-LATER) Then Skene spoke, and in a moment had his audience afire. (Idem)

The basically predicative quality of the statives is equally evident in all of these cases. It is somewhat weakened when a stative has the function of an attribute following its noun: A man alive to social interests. And the predicative quality of the stative is further weakened when it precedes a noun as its attribute (this is very rare indeed). The word aloof seems to have gone further than any other stative in this respect. Thus, we find such phrases as his aloof attitude, an aloof manner, etc. On the other hand, the word asleep can only be a prepositive attribute when it is preceded by the adverb fast, as in the phrase a fast-asleep child.

The phrase "be + stative" may sometimes be synonymous with the continuous form of the corresponding verb. Cf., e. g., He is asleep and He is sleeping, He was asleep and He was sleeping. We are therefore entitled to ask whether these two ways of expression are always interchangeable, or whether a difference of some kind or other exists between them. This question has not been finally answered so far.

Proceeding now to compare the statives in English with those in Russian, we find that they do not correspond to each other, i. e. a Russian stative is, it seems, never translated by an English

Syntactical Functions 75

stative, and vice versa. A few examples will suffice to illustrate the point. Such typical Russian statives as жаль, лень, тепло, холодно are never translated by statives into English: мне его жаль — I pity him, or I feel some pity for him; жаль усов — I feel sorry for my moustache; ему лень было вставать — he fell too lazy to get up; здесь тепло — it is warm here; ему холодно — he is cold, or he feels cold, etc. On the other hand, he is asleep corresponds to the Russian он спит; the ship is afloat to the Russian судно в плавании; the house was ablaze to the Russian дом был в огне, etc. It follows that the phenomena which can be expressed by statives in Russian and in English, are far from being the same.

The existence of statives as a separate part of speech is not universally recognised either for the Russian or for the English language. We will not enter into details of the problems in reference to Russian but we will briefly consider some objections which have been raised against the stative as a part of speech in Modern English. L.S.Barkhudarov in an article published in 1958 ¹ denies the existence of statives in English on the following grounds: (1) the meaning of "state" is merely a special variety of the meaning of "property" typical of adjectives, (2) words of this category can be preceded by the word more: more ashamed, etc., (3) they can be modified by adverbs (painfully alive), by prepositional phrases (alive with stars) and they can be the predicative, a postpositional or detached attribute, and, less frequently, a prepositive attribute: In the United States the problem of dealing with names of foreign extraction is an alive one. (MCKNIGHT)

The conclusion L. Barkhudarov arrives at is that words of this type are adjectives, which of course is the traditional view. However, these arguments are not binding. They are based on several assumptions which are by no means self-evident or necessary. Thus, there is nothing to prove that the notion of "state" cannot be the foundation of a separate part of speech. Each of the theories here discussed is based on certain conceptions which pave the way to the respective conclusions. The choice should be made in favour of the one that gives a simpler and more consistent presentation of language facts.

¹ See Л. С. Бархударов, О так называемой «категории состояния». Иностранные языки в школе, 1958, № 6, стр. 114.

Chapter VIII

THE VERB: ASPECT

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, ¹ 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.

¹ This statement is based on the assumption that the noun and the adjective in Modern English have no analytical forms (compare p. 57 and p. 60).

Aspect 77

ASPECT

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 (Russian, Polish, Czech, etc.), and also to ancient Greek, in which this category is clearly expressed.

78 The Verb: Aspect

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. (M. MITCHELL) 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 Russian) 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." (E. CALDWELL) 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. (BUECHNER)

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. (CARY) 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 differen-

Aspect 78

tiating 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. (SNOW) 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? (SNOW) 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... (SNOW) 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. (SNOW) 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. (TAYLOR) Compare also: "I think you are being just," Charles said... (SNOW) 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... (LINKLATER) 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. (SALINGER) He is being interesting obviously means here, 'he is behaving in an interesting way', or 'he is trying to be

80 The Verb: Aspect

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. (TAYLOR)

TERMINOLOGY

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.

SPECIAL USES

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. (LINKLATER) Rose is always wanting James to retire. (CARY) 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

Different Interpretations 81

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.

DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS

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 ¹ 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,² 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. (R. WEST) 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".³ N. Irtenyeva 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.⁴

¹ See O. Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, p. 277 ff.

² See H. Ф. Иртеньева, Грамматика английского языка, 1956, стр. 82.

³ The present continuous is occasionally used in sentences containing mention of another action expressed by a verb in the present tense, as in the following examples: As she speaks I am thinking of the founders of the city. (DURRELL) But when yon are dying you suddenly find yourself in funds. (IDEM) My toothbrush is a thing that makes my life unhappy when I'm travelling. (JEROME K. JEROME, quoted by N. Irtenyeva) These are special cases, however. In the first example the forms of the present are used to narrate past actions, and in the other two examples repeated or habitual Actions are meant.

⁴ See H. Ф. Иртеньева, op. cit., p. 83.

82 The Verb: Aspect

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, ¹ 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. ² 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.³

¹ See below, p. 86 ff.

² See И. П. Иванова, Вид и время в современном английском языке, 1961, стр. 57 сл., 77 сл.

³ When we discuss the meaning of the unmarked member of an opposition we sometimes find it difficult to formulate. This is true, for example, of the common case, as opposed to the genitive, and also of the common aspect as opposed to the continuous, etc. Of course attempts should be made to find an adequate definition of the meaning of unmarked members, but the difficulty should not deter us from stating the existence of the unmarked member, as grammatically opposed to the marked one.

Aspect and Character of the Verb 83

DIFFERENT TERMS

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. ¹ 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".