A Cognitive Study Of Non-prototypical Uses Of The English Present Tense

The issue of non-present uses of the English present tense has been discussed a lotand various interpretations have been provided for the non-present of the present tense.From the Langacker’s “the Structural World Model” to the “Mental Space theory”proposed by Fauconnier, which all discuss different theories of non-present of thepresent tense. However, these analyses are limited to the classification of thenon-present uses or lack detailed motivation analysis, not making a further descriptionfor their underlying cognitive mechanism.Under the framework of the Prototype Theory, regarding the ductility andfuzziness of categorization of English present tense as the starting point and aiming todeplore the cognitive mechanism of the generation of the non-present uses of thepresent tense, this paper defines the instantaneous uses, habitual uses and state presentuses as a prototypical member of the simple present tense in this category, and otherintimate uses, past uses, foregrounding uses, imaginative uses, unrestrictive uses, andfuture uses as non-prototypical members. On this basis, through the analysis of theGrady’s Experiential Correlation Theory as well as the non-temporal uses of tensesummed up by Tyler&Evans, we can find that time and space are closely linked whilethree kinds of non-referential uses (intimacy, salience, actuality)and spatial distanceare also closely related: the close distance from others often means close relationship;the characteristics of the visual organ determine that the closer the thing is, the easier itwill be highlighted; it tends to be our real experience within closer distance. Thus wecan attribute the various types of the non-prototypical uses to three degrees. In themeantime, we will adopt the principle of distance iconicity in the theory of Iconicityand take advantage of the correspondence between language and conception so as toanalyze the varieties of the non-prototypical uses. Time distance, as a formlessdistance, resembles psychological distance, which further infers that we can u se thepresent tense to express our degrees of intimacy, salience and actuality. Theseconclusions all reveal the cognitive reason of non-prototypical uses’ generation andamply prove the rationality of the cognitive mechanism of the theory of ExperientialCorrelation and Iconicity, expanding the scope of the study of non-prototypical uses ofpresent tense. Moreover, this conclusion has certain teaching practical significance andpragmatic function in English teaching and interpersonal verbal communication.