Theme 16. The problem of the Subjunctive Mood in English

Plan

1. The Introduction

2. The Semantic Approach to the Mood

3. The Formal Approach

4. A. I. Smirnitsky and other Soviet linguists on the problem of the Subjunctive Mood

5. The binary theory (R. Jacobson) about the Category of Mood

6. The Problem of Survival of the Subjunctive Mood in English

7. The Function of the Subjunctive Mood forms

The Problem of Mood in the English Language

The problem of Mood has been the object of controversy for more than a hundred years. The authors describing the subjunctive mood often disagree on the concept of mood, modality, modal auxiliaries and the criteria the researcher should use in defining the concept and the grammatical status of the subjunctive mood.

To account for this difference of opinion it is necessary to take into consideration at least two circumstances:

1. The problem of mood is not a specific grammar question, it is a knot of cardinal problems: that of form and function, language and reality, modality, interaction and interdependence of various language levels.

Should someone untie this knot he would probably define the grammatical status of the subjunctive mood.

2. The system of the subjunctive mood in Modern English has been and still is in a state of development. There are many elements in it which are rapidly falling into disuse and there are new elements coming into use.

The authors describe the subjunctive mood as a morphological category. The grammatical category on the morphological level can be realized through a paradigm. The structure of a paradigm is different. The paradigm of an English verb includes both inflexional and analytical forms. Interpreting the subjunctive mood as a morphological category makes it impossible for a researcher to find out the correspondence between the grammatical form and the definite grammatical meaning expressed by it. One form can have various meanings, and the same meaning can be expressed by different grammatical means. This is what accounts for various approaches to the problem of the Subjunctive Mood. The history of its study goes back to the 18^th century. It was as far back as 1764 that the author of A Real English Grammar stated the necessity to mind the situation requiring this or that grammatical form to express some meaning, not the inflexion. As far back as 1796, R. Zynch objected to numerous attempts to distinguish between more moods than there are inflexions.

The problem of Mood can be approached from the semantic formal points of view and that of binary oppositions.

The Semantic Approach

In keeping with the semantic approach the number of moods ranges from two to sixteen. It is due to the degree of semantic generalization, expressed by the grammatical forms viewed as the subjunctive mood forms. With classical grammar authors meaning came first. H. Sweet (Sweet 1892: 109) distinguishes between fact-mood (the indicative mood) and thought-mood (the mood, expressing something as contrary to reality). The latter could be subjunctive (be, were) or conditional (should, would + infinitive) as regards the form: synthetic or analytical. In keeping with the verb form semantics H. Sweet also distinguishes two more moods: Permissive (may + infinitive) and Compulsive (is + infinitive).

According to G. Curme (Curme 1935: 228) there are two moods: Optative (it expresses a desirable action) and Potential (something probable, but not a fact, “a mere conception of mind”). J. Curme gives a number of examples, modal verbs let + infinitive including, which are traditionally treated as subjunctive mood forms. But all of them lack systematic approach and have no correlation with the meaning they express.

M. Deutschbein (Deutschbein 1931: 112-131) has the greatest number of moods – 16, which after a closer examination can boil down to four: cogitative, optative, voluntative and expectative.

Among the latest papers on the subject it is the theory of J. Leech (Leech 1971: 106-112) that deserves attention. As regards the grammatical form, the subjunctive mood and the indicative have a lot in common. It is only the semantics that help distinguish between the factual, theoretical and hypothetical. J. Leech gives the inventory of all possible grammatical forms used to express the meanings registered.

All the semantic theories of the Subjunctive Mood developed by foreign scholars have the same drawback:

1) The Subjunctive Mood meanings are generalized or made concrete to the greatest extent;

2) Various language phenomena are listed under the Subjunctive Mood.

The Soviet scholars take into consideration both the meaning and the grammatical form of the category.

The formal approach

If you treat the category of mood from the point of its grammatical form, a number of problems still remains. Here belong the inventory of the subjunctive mood forms, the problem of compatibility of forms of various meaning and structure within one paradigm; the problem of polysemy or homonymy of grammatical forms used to express subjunctive mood meanings and the Indicative mood; the correlation of the Subjunctive Mood and Tense.

The problem of making an inventory of the Subjunctive mood forms is due to the co-existence of the archaic forms of the Subjunctive Mood “be”, “were” and the new analytical forms “should”, “would” + infinitive, “may”, “might” + infinitive and so on. Otto Jespersen (Jespersen 1933: 293-295), who upholds the formal approach to the phenomenon examined, while criticizing Deutschbein’s 16 moods treats “be”, “were” as such and wouldn’t admit analytical forms. It is O. Jespersen who has greatly influenced the views of scholars belonging to younger generations. The great majority of linguists tend to regard synthetic forms of the Subjunctive Mood “be”, “were” (e.g. long live, suffice it to say) to be the only forms of the Subjunctive Mood despite the fact that they have become archaic and are found as survivals in poetry, high prose, official documents and certain set expressions (Harsh 1968, Visser 1966). Should/would forms are free syntactical combinations. Here belong modal verb combinations and modal expressions. According to the other linguists (Trager, Smith 1951) there is no grammatical category of Subjunctive Mood since there are no special grammatical forms to express it. As regards something imaginary, desirable, problematic, contrary to reality (subjunctive mood meanings) they are expressed by verb combinations called “modelike” and “similar to the modes”. P. Roberto has it (Roberto 1958) that they are should/would +infinitive collocations, where should and would, may and might are modal verbs.

W. Francis (Francis 1958) divides mood forms into 2 groups:

1) may, can, shall, will, must + infinitive

2) have, be, be going, be about + infinitive

These groups overlap. He does not mention the Subjunctive Mood.

Like W. Francis, R. Allen (1966: 162) speaks of two groups: that of modals (modal auxiliaries) and quasi modals (to be able etc.). A. Hill and R. Hall (Hill 1958; Hall 1964) question the existence of the Subjunctive Mood, since there are no inflexions to show it and thus come to the conclusion that there is no grammatical category of mood in English. Along with it they admit that there are forms that could be used in the subjunctive function.

The analysis of the viewpoints held by foreign scholars shows that we deal with a mixture of terms and phenomena that mislead and confuse the reader (Cf. R. Long 1966: 204-208).

In this country the scholars that regard the formal criterion as the primary one are I. P. Ivanova, V. V. Burlakova, G. G. Pocheptsov (Теоретическая грамматика современного русского языка 1981: 68-74). They account for the complexity and lack of harmony in mood system forms by historical development (Cf. B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya 1967: 157): the new analytical forms with should have come to replace the former present subjunctive in popular speech.

Cf: Take heed, lest thou fall

Take heed, lest you should fall.

(In American English where many archaic features are better preserved the former present tense forms are more common). I. P. Ivanova and alia hold that more importance should be given to the context in which this or that meaning is realized. Their inventory of the Subjunctive Mood forms includes the traditional grammatical forms treated as the Subjunctive Mood forms.

The Subjunctive Mood and the Category of Tense

Time is objective, but all the moods, the indicative excluding, are subjective, that’s why the grammatical meaning of the opposition lived:: had lived, would come:: would have come is that of time correlation, not the temporal meaning (Ilyish 1971). The authors of “Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка” also point out the time correlation meaning of some forms of the Subjunctive Mood. Some foreign scholars also connect some subjunctive mood forms with the temporal planes of the Present/Past/Future depending on the context, while some scholar point out the modality of some subjunctive mood forms: assuredness, reality He had come, I should have left, If I were King… (Evans B., Evans C. 1957: 484; Jacobson 1975: 281).

The correlation between the Subjunctive Mood and the category of tense seems to be the only point that is not contradictory (the least controversial point).

The English Mood can also be described in terms of the binary theory (Якобсон 1972: 95-113). But it doesn’t help solve the problem of the Subjunctive Mood. Analysing the grammatical means used to express the subjunctive mood meanings takes you nowhere.

Де Гроот (1972: 169-213) offers another attempt of describing the theory of Mood. According to Гроот, the Subjunctive Mood in English lacks productive semantic function. It only has a syntactic function. The sphere of its usage is confined to writing and literary speech. He suggests that the opposition the Subjunctive Mood:: the Indicative Mood be replaced by a complicated system of moods; ignoring many forms and meanings traditionally considered subjunctive. The drawback of the theory is the following: it is too complicated, miscellaneous as regards the forms, there is no definition of the mood as a category.

It is obvious that another attempt to interpret the phenomena traditionally treated as the Subjunctive Mood will not contribute to the new understanding of the problem. It always takes us back to the starting point: one and the same form can mean various things; and the same grammatical meaning can be expressed by different means.

The Function of the Subjunctive Mood

In Old English the function of the Subjunctive Mood was expressing modality. Later its usage in simple sentences was narrowed and the Subjunctive Mood forms were used mainly in sub-clauses. It is free syntactical combinations of modal verb with the infinitive, that assumed the function of expressing modality. The old function of expressing modality is represented in a simple sentence with the Subjunctive Mood. In Modern English the Subjunctive Mood is found in clichés.

In all other cases the Subjunctive Mood forms are used in complex sentences and their meanings can be deduced from the context and depend on the structure and kind of the clause (Ермолаева 1978) which emphasizes the syntactical function of the Subjunctive Mood. It is small wonder that some Soviet and foreign scholars believe that the problem can be solved on the clause level (Muir 1972: 93). Мартынов (1985: 155) “Absolute linguistic realia belong to semantic syntax, not to morphology”.

But before the Subjunctive Mood is interpreted as a syntactical category it requires definition. It is only then that one could attempt to describe the phenomenon from the new stand.

References:

1. Бархударов Л. С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. М., 1975, 156 с.

2. Воронцова Г. Н. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. М., 1960. 399 с.

3. Гроот А. В. Де Классификация групп слов // Принципы типологического анализа языков различного строя / Отв. Ред. О. Г. Ревзина. М., 1972. С. 95-113.

4. Иванова И. П. и др. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. М., 1981. 286 с.

5. Ильиш Б. А. Строй современного английского языка. 2-е изд. Л., 1971. 366 с.

6. Смирницкий А. И. Морфология английского языка, 1959. 440 с.

7. Якобсон Р. О. Шифтеры, глагольные категории и русский глагол // Принципы типологического анализа языков различного строя / Отв. Ред. О. Г. Ревзина. М., 1972. С. 95-113.

8. Allen R. Z. The verb system of present day American English. The Hague, 1966. 303 p.

9. Curme G. A grammar of the English language: In three volumes. Boston, 1935. Vol. 2. 370 p. London; New York, 1931. Vol. 3. 616 p.

10. Deutschbein M. System der neuenglischen Syntax. Leipzig, 1931, 322 S.

11. Evans B., Evans C. A dictionary of contemporary American usage. N.Y., 1957. 567 p.

12. Francis W. N. The Structure of American English. N.Y., 1958, 614 p.

13. Hall R. A. Introductory linguistics. Philadelphia, 1964, 508 p.

14. Harsh W. The subjunctive in English. University of Alabama Press. 1968. 174 p.

15. Hill A. Introduction to linguistic structures. N.Y., 1958, 446 p.

16. Jespersen O. Essentials of English grammar. London, 1933, 387 p.

17. Leech G. N. Meaning and the English Verbs. London, 1971, 131 p.

18. Michael I. English grammatical categories and the tradition to 1800. Cambridge, 1970. 424 p.

19. Roberts P. Understanding English. N.Y., 1958, 508 p.

20. Sweet H. A new English grammar, logical and historical: In two parts. Oxford, 1892. Pt I. XXIV + 499 p.; Oxford, 1898. Pt. II. IX + 137 p.

21. Trager G. Z., Smith H. An outline of English structure. Oklahoma, 1951, 92 p.

22. Visser F. Th. On historical syntax of the English language: In two parts. Leiden, 1966. 796 p.

23. Zandvoort R. W. On the so-called subjunctive // English Language. Teaching. 1963. Vol. 17. P. 73-77.

24. Zong R. B. Imperative and Subjunctive in contemporary English // American Speech. 1966. Vol. 41. N. 3. P. 199-210.