The Conjunctive Mood in English as a Problem in General Linguistics 9783110806977, 9789027934048

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE N I C O L A I VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curat C. H. V A N S C H O O N E V E L D Indiana University

Series Minor,

212

THE CONJUNCTIVE MOOD IN ENGLISH As a problem in General Linguistics

by

IRINA B. KHLEBNIKOVA

1976 MOUTON THE HAGUE-PARIS

©Copyright 1976 Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

ISBN 9 0 2 7 9 3 4 0 4 5

Printed in The Netherlands

CONTENTS

Foreword

vii

Foreword to the English edition

ix

Introduction

1

Modality and Mood

1

I. The Paradigmatics of the Conjunctive Mood

7

A brief survey of the paradigmatic system of the verb as a whole II. The Syntagmatics of the Conjunctive Mood

31

1. The temporal reference of the forms of the conjunctive mood 2. The correlation of the modal verbs with mood

24

31 . . .

3. The combined use of the conditional and the subjunctive in conditional constructions

39 45

a) Conditional constructions, type I

46

b) Neutralization of the opposition between the indicative and the conjunctive mood

48

c) Variants of the conditional construction pattern, type I

59

d) Conditional constructions, type II

65

e) The mixed type of conditional construction . . . .

71

4. Isolated (independent) use of the conditional

72

4.1

The conditional in complex and simple sentences

72

a) The condition included in a separate clause . .

72

vi b) The condition included in part of a clause or in the conditional form itself

4.2

75

c) Idiomatic expressions with a conditional sense

78

The conditional in subordinate clauses a) The conditional in complement subordinate clauses

79 80

b) The conditional in attributive subordinate clauses c) The conditional in adverbial clauses 5. The separate use of the subjunctive III. Morphological Variants of the Conjunctive Mood . . .

81 83 85 95

1. On the concepts of synonymy anddistinguishing variation

95

2. The types of morphological variants of the conjunctive mood

101

Conclusion

133

Bibliography

135

FOREWORD (1)

In 1958, the Leningrad branch of the Ucpedgiz published my book Soslagatel'noe naklonenie v sovremennom anglijskom jazyke[The Conjunctive Mood in Modern English]. Since that time, linguistic science has taken g r e a t s t r i d e s f o r w a r d , with considerable changes in its methods of approaching linguistic m a t e r i a l . Unfortunately, however, it must be noted that the achievements of science have not yet penetrated into the educational p r o c e s s as f a r as they should; the new t r e a t m e n t s of linguistic phenomena, l e s s subjective and m o r e f o r malized and objective, a r e f a r f r o m consistently reflected in the educational p r o c e s s - in l e c t u r e c o u r s e s and in the subject m a t t e r and methodology of s e m i n a r s and practical studies. The need to think deeply about a subject, seeking ways to perfect its methodology and theory, has been brought about by the world-wide development of science in general f r o m the empirical stage of accumulating f a c t s to the s e a r c h f o r connections between them, f o r r e g u l a r i t i e s in the phenomena and p r o c e s s e s which take place in any o b ject of scientific study, and in practical activities. The new edition of the text which is offered h e r e p r e s e n t s a fully revised conception of the English conjunctive mood, which has taken shape over the last ten o r fifteen y e a r s during the p r o c e s s of thinking through the theories and methods which, in the author's opinion, have the g r e a t e s t bearing on the m a t e r i a l at hand. The author has attempted to ground the explanations in the most accessible form possible, and to lead the r e a d e r to an analogous understanding of the phenomena which a r e d e s c r i b e d . The conjunctive mood, naturally, is a p a r t of the verbal system; t h e r e f o r e , the set of r e g u l a r i t i e s which hold in its f o r m s and content is explicable only f r o m the viewpoint of the entire verbal s y s t e m , which must be the point of d e p a r t u r e . Since the author, in a s e r i e s of works, has investigated the various p r o p e r t i e s of the English v e r b as a whole (2), it is possible to apply the results of these investigation in the formulation of a theory of mood and in the explanation of the d i f ficulties associated with the conjunctive mood in English. The conjunctive mood r e m a i n s to this day the most difficult part of English g r a m m a r . One could s c a r c e l y find two authors who would have identical views concerning this category. (3) This situation has come about because of the peculiarities of the historical development of the verbal f o r m a t i v e s , in the course of which the inflectional indicators of mood w e r e lost; but the requirements of human d i s c o u r s e in the e x p r e s s i o n of the range of meanings inherent in the conjunctive mood made it n e c e s s a r y to r e c r u i t the means f o r expressing this category

viii

from the various other resources of the language. Thus, a motley picture was created of the means for expressing the conjunctive mood: on one hand, some sort of remnants of the crumbled system of inflectional markers were preserved, surviving for various reasons; on the other hand, new formatives of an analytical pattef-n appeared, involving various forms for expressing particular meanings; thirdly, other forms, intended to express other categories, were recruited. But in spite of this multiplicity of forms, it is possible to posit certain regularities, a definite systematicity, since morphological structure, as the 'frame' of a language, displays systematic features to a greater extent than the other aspects of linguistic structure. However, any regularity can be successfully discovered only on the basis of the study of the various processes and phenomena which take place in language. Furthermore, it is necessary to investigate the units of the several layers of linguistic structure as a system of linguistic means, on the one hand, and their function in speech, in text, on the other. Therefore, the search for regularities in such a contradictory and complex unit as the conjunctive mood made it necessary to turn to a broad range of phenomena which are characteristic for various linguistic units. Inasmuch as this text sheds light on such general grammatical and general linguistic questions as modality, homonymy, synonymy, variation, the relationship between paradigmatics and syntagmatics, the influence of environment (up to and including the supersentential level) on the content and function of morphological forms, the relationship between sentence types and verbal forms, the relationship between modal verbs and mood, grammatical idiomaticity, oppositions and their neutralization, the relationship between invariant and variant meaning, the distinctive features of verbal forms, and so forth, it can be used as a reference work for morphology and syntax (not only with respect to English), and for general linguistics as well.

NOTES (1) This book was originally published in Russian under the title Soslagatel'noe naklonenie v anglijskom jazyke (kak obscelingvisticeskaja problema) (Kalinin, 1971). The English term 'conjunctive mood' is used to render the Russian term soslagatel'noe naklonenie, which refers to the Modern English verbal sub-system composed of the subjunctive (sub"junktiv) and the conditional (kondicionalis). In other contexts, such as 'conjunctive', 'present conjunctive', etc., the term 'conjunctive' renders the Russian term kon"junktiv, which refers to a category of the Old English verbal system or the contemporary remnants of this category. (2) One of them is Irina Khlebnikova, Oppositions in Morphology. (3) No detailed survey of works dealing with mood is given in this text. Such a survey can be found in the author's doctoral dissertation, Sistema anglijskogo glagola i soslagatel'noe naklonenie [The English Verbal System and the Conjunctive Mood], chapter IX.

FOREWORD TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

The appearance of this book is largely due to the fact, that apart from there being no two grammarians who share the same opinion about the composition of forms and meanings inherent in the oblique mood in English, no clear borderline has yet been drawn between purely g r a m matical (morphological) formatives coming within the sphere of this mood (or moods), and phrases with different modal verbs. In short, neither the number of unreal moods, nor their formal properties have yet been made clear and uncontroversial. Even the names given to moods differ from author to author and largely depend on the personal tastes and inclinations of the linguist. For these reasons the author of this book has undertaken the task to collect linguistic material from sources written in English, and draw some generalizations prompted by the material under study. The works selected for illustrations a r e variegated on purpose, ranging from XIX-th century prose to modern English and American literature, just to show that the rules proffered here are valid for the structure of the modern English language in general, and are not based on stylistically or contextually restricted data. Occasional comparisons with the same kind of grammatical phenomenon in Russian give some information of a typological character. The absence of any set criteria for the identification of the phenomenon under discussion made evident the need to look for some general linguistic processes inherent in language which govern many aspects of the functioning in English of means for expressing unreal actions. Therefore, though the book is dedicated to the description of only one grammatical category of the English verb, it touches upon various linguistic problems which were taken into account while sorting out the paradigmatic and syntagmatic set-up of the English oblique mood. Just to show the range of differences in the avenues of approach to the questions touched upon in the present edition, it might be of interest to pick up at random some concepts of unreal mood(s) in English from books written in different countries. Among the representatives of the pre-structural grammar a certain influence on subsequent works was exercised by H. Sweet, (1) Otto Jespersen, (2) and G. O. Curme. (3) In our opinion the closest approximation to systemic approach to the facts of English where mood is concerned, is represented by H. Sweet, H. Poutsma, (4) and in our country the late prof. B. Ilyish. (5) These authors distinguish two unreal moods: the subjunctive and the conditional, with some fluctuations as to the inventory of forms included in those moods, which fact is conditioned by the lack of consideration for general linguistic

X

notions the cognizance of which is the property of more recent developments. Besides, these authors could not have undertaken wide-range observations of abundant language material on mood, since their task was to embrace the whole of English grammar. Constant confusion of tense and mood is characteristic for many grammarians, even for advocates of what we call systemic approach. By way of illustration the viewpoint of F. Sack may be mentioned, who, admitting on one hand the existence of the only 'living' subjunctive form were, states, on the other hand, that the subjunctive II form (his term) became identical with the preterite form and acquired a second function of the relative present tense to express the non-fact: (6) A. Tellier calls the forms of the type i r r é e l present and the form type had spoken - i r r é e l passé. (7) A very popular view advocated by O. Jespersen is that the subjunctive mood in English has been subjected to decay due to the loss of special inflectional markers of moods. The only forms admitted are: relics of the present conjunctive, and were for all persons. (8) Such a purely historical approach disregards chronologically more recent formations of analytical shape, and the general correlations of forms and their meanings at the synchronic stage of the language. Lack of criteria for the identification of analytical forms brought about the indiscriminate inclusion of phrases with any modal verb as their first component into formatives of the unreal moods in English. A classical instance of such an interpretation is the grammatical theory of G. O. Curme. The terms 'potential' and 'optative' coverphrases with any modal verb, which are considered as formatives of these moods alongside with pure subjunctive forms. Examples of such moods: you may (can) go, you should go at once, God bless you, What shall I do, (9) etc. Such a mixture of means for expressing moods can be found in many other g r a m m a r s . (10) It is quite a wonder that very few authors admit the most widely spread and really 'living' mood - the conditional. (11) And even among those who do, the forms of the conditional are often confused with the temporal forms: thus A. Clark includes conditional forms into the indicative calling them 'future conditional', (12) Some authors advocate a mixed concept of mood including among its exponents real forms of the subjunctive, as well as combinations with various modal verbs, others deny the subjunctive forms homonymous with the indicative (type: spoke, had spoken). And now and then the assertion that the subjunctive moôd is declining in modern English crops up with authors of different persuasions. One can't help wondering how then are English-speaking people supposed to express unreal actions. It stands to reason to expect that a language is bound to find some resources hidden in its structure to make up for exponents of grammatical categories lost for some reason or other in the course of its historical development. It is noteworthy that it was precisely the tendency to obliterate all distinctions between the modal phrases and the analytical forms of the conditional that suited the school of descriptive linguistics and all the theories somehow or other connected with it. The reason for it is

xi the linear approach to linguistic units, the priority which syntactic structures obtained in linguistics of recent years, the more so that the linear patterns of modal verb combinations and analytical forms with auxiliaries modal by origin coincide in their syntagmatic structure and in the type of components they contain (could have done = would have done). An illustration of such a tendency may be drawn from the scheme of forms given by G. Trager and H. Smith, (13) where in the section dedicated to syntax a list of verbal phrases is attached, among which one can find such 'exponents' of mood as will-mode, shall-mode, can-mode, do-mode, have to-mode, etc. without any specification of the kind of grammatical categories they represent. The treatment of modal phrases on the same level as analytical forms in which the first component is devoid of any modal meaning precludes any systematic analysis of formal means of expressing unreality in English, and of grammatical categories and oppositions within the verbal system in general. Similar ways of treating such units can be found in the works of H. Whitehall, W. N. Francis, P. Roberts and others. (14) It has become somewhat of a tradition in contemporary writings to make no mention of such a grammatical category as subjunctive (or conditional), which is mostly characteristic for American authors, especially of the transformational trend; it happens in Europe too. (15) As is seen from this very cursory survey, the controversial problem of the English mood can generate any ideas, sometimes even fantastic. This can be proved by the existence of a purely semantic approach to mood. The adherent to it, of the older generation, is M. Deutschbein who affirmed the existence of 16 moods in English. (16) The same tendency manifested itself with a representative of descriptive linguistics E. Nida who spoke of 15 moods. (17) The reader of the present volume is welcome to find out for himself the answer to questions which suggested themselves out of this short review of different avenues of approach to that mood in English even the name for which is a point of controversy. Moscow, August 1975 NOTES (1) H. Sweet, A New English Grammar, part I. (2) Otto Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar. (3) G. O. Curme, The Principles and Practice of English Grammar. (4) H. Poutsma, A Grammar of Late Modern English, part II, sect. II. (5) B. A. Ilyish, The Structure of Modern English, ch. XI. (6) F. L. Sack, The Structure of English, 35. (7) A. Tellier, Les verbes perfecto-presents, 323. (8) Otto Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, v. VII, 623. This view is characteristic for quite a number of writings in different countries.

xii (9) G. O. Curme, The Principles and Practice of English, 57, 236 and others. (10) Ch. C. Fries, American English Grammar, 129ff,; G. C. F e r nald, English Grammar Simplified, 80, 98, 105; R. W. Pence, A Grammar of Present-day English, 230ff, and many other authors. (11) F. L. Sack, The Structure of English, 35; A. M. Clark, Spoken English, 207; W. Friedrich, Englische Formenlehre, 13. (12) A. M. Clark, Spoken English, 221ff. (13) G. L. Trager and H. L. Smith, An Outline of English Structure. (14) H. Whitehall, Structural Essentials of English, 83; W. N. Francis, The Structure of American English, 330; P. Roberts, Patterns of English, 40, 53. (15) J . Muir, A Modern Approach to English Grammar. (16) M. Deutschbein, System der neuenglischen Syntax, 113. (17) E. Nida, Morphology, 168-69.

INTRODUCTION

Modality and Mood Before beginning the discussion of the English conjunctive mood in particular, we will introduce certain facts about modality and its r e lation to mood. (1) As is well known, modality is an indispensable property of statements. It does not define the composition of a statement, but rather its content on the level of the nature and degree of the relation between the subject of a statement and its predicate or between the theme of a thought and its property. (2) A significant majority of the works of Russian writers dealing with mood, modal verbs, the means of expressing emphasis or emotion, the modal use of tense, as well as various syntactic questions, consider it their obligation to give a definition of modality; but to this day it remains unclear what kind of category is being defined in such cases - a logical category (and this, if you please, is a matter for logicians), or a grammatical category, and if the latter, then what sort of category is it? Sometimes modality is defined as a 'syntactic category expressingthe relationship between an utterance and objective reality from the point of view of the speaker', where a distinction is drawn between real and unreal modality, but it remains unexplained in what types of syntactic structures this category finds linguistic expression, and what the r e ality or unreality which is expressed linguistically pertains to - if an action, then this should be inherent in the verbal category (and not syntactic structures) or in the type of lexical meaning of the verb; and if this has to do with thought content, then the definition of its reality or unreality is not a topic of grammar. The intrusion of logical categories into the sphere of grammatical studies is due to the inadequate demarcation of logic and grammar, a legacy from the times when the logical-psychological approach to grammatical phenomena reigned supreme. In the logical-grammatical notion of modality we find a confusion of two distinct aspects of linguistic reality: in the first place, the design of sentence structure (intonational or strictly structural) in accordance with its communicative task, which in the final analysis is defined by the speaker's intentions; and in the second place, the transmission, through the verbal category or the lexical meaning of the verb, as well as of the words modifying it, of the modality of the action expressed in the sentence. Those who advocate the introduction into grammar of the logical concept of the modality of statement attempt to unite these

2 two phenomena, which differ in essence and in level, into one category - (which cannot of c o u r s e be unified) - , and it still r e m a i n s not c l e a r whether modality is a syntactic or a morphological or semantic category. It is quite obvious that in the final analysis language does reflect r e ality, although not directly or immediately (for otherwise all languages would be identical), but through an intermediary - through its own s t r u c t u r e , peculiar to language in general and to a given, p a r t i c u l a r language. The universal philosophical and logical concepts of time, space, modality, gender, and aspect a r e all reflected in language, which allows us to study linguistic u n i v e r s a l s , but the reflection of reality has no meaning f o r the problem of the categorial content of g r a m m a t i c a l f o r m s and s t r u c t u r e s . This depends on many f a c t o r s , above all the system of correspondences which the f o r m s of a given language enter into, and it also depends on how they a r e manifested formally. It is i r r e l e v a n t f o r syntactic analysis that the subject r e flects the topic of a thought (all the m o r e since this is not always the case), while an attribute r e f l e c t s some other category of thought, f o r the p a r t s of a sentence a r e not defined according to statement, but a c cording to t h e i r mutual relations. T h e r e f o r e , the predicate is a genuine syntactic category, which, however, does not establish a relation with reality, but r a t h e r establishes a relation between two components of the sentence, between an action or a property and its b e a r e r . An attribute also e x p r e s s e s a relation between two components, but of a different kind. Modality, however, does not r e l a t e two sentential components; consequently, it e x p r e s s e s no syntactic relations and t h e r e f o r e is not a syntactic category. The establishment of the relation between the content of a sentence and reality - the truth or falsity of a statement is not in general a concern f o r g r a m m a r , and it is not a linguistic problem to define the relationship between the modality of statements and the modality of sentences, especially since modality acquires a different content in language than in logic. Thus, f o r example, n e c e s s ity is broken down in language into the meanings: indebtedness, m a n i festation of the will, obligation, o r the compulsion for the subject of an action to c a r r y out the action or to p o s s e s s a p a r t i c u l a r p r o p e r t y . The meaning of possibility is also reflected differently in language than in logic, and branches into a set of submeanings - doubt, supposition, p e r m i s s i o n , and so forth. The g r a m m a t i c a l meaning of the unreality of a condition and its consequences, which exists in all languages, can be linked on the logical plane with the modality of i m possibility, which, apparently, gives different branchings of the m e a n ings of moods in p a r t i c u l a r languages. The impossibility of finding a p r e c i s e parallel between the modality of statement and the modality of linguistic meanings has been noted by W. V. Quine, who states that the problem of a condition which contradicts reality pertains not only to logic, but to the theory of meaning as well. (3) It should also be pointed out that there cannot exist, in one language, any kind of universal grammatical category which is peculiar to m o r phology as well as to syntax, and which in addition has lexical and prosodic means of expression. In defining the units of language it is

3

crucial that the hierarchy of levels be observed. What is modality? Modality is a conceptual (semantic) category, a type of meaning or a complex of meanings, with various reflexes in language. The essence of modal meanings gives rise to the fact that they are realized, for the most part, in the predicate: this follows from the logical nature of modality, which establishes the character and content of the relation between the subject and the predicate of a statement. To all intents and purposes, modality is above all peculiar to the verb, and the study of modal meanings should begin with an analysis of the possibility of expressing modality in the grammatical categories of the verb or in its lexical meaning. In essence, any grammatical (morphological) category, which naturally has a level of expression as well as a level of content, can pose a semantic problem with respect to language as a whole - a problem of meaning, which may be realized not only in morphological form as a grammatical category, but may be reflected by other linguistic means as well. Thus, tense or aspect can find more concrete expression in adverbials such as 'tomorrow, not long ago, during the summer, at once, quickly'. The modal characteristics of an event can be expressed not only by means of the so-called modal words or phrases, but can also find explicit expression through special semiauxiliary verbs, which are closely linked with lexically full verbs and which form, with them, a single predicative whole, as in can do. The question posed here concerning the meaning-relation between grammatical categories proper and separate lexical units, simple and complex, brings up the semasiological problem of the content plane of language, which is a sort of connecting link between the logical concepts and representations which arise in objective reality, and their concrete reflection in linguistic form; and which is also a prism, through which knowledge of the phenomena and relations of the s u r rounding world are projected onto language. (4) A conceptual or semantic category is a form of manifestation in language of correspondences with logic, in which are included both grammatical relations (non-thematic, abstract) and lexical meanings (thematic, concrete), whereby the characteristics of a semantic category determine its ability to be expressed simultaneously on the grammatical and lexical levels of language, or only on the lexical. It is not accidental that a particular understanding of modality has become entrenched in grammatical tradition. Since time immemorial, such units have been considered modal which are capable of expressing, in a more or less concrete or generalized form, depending on the characteristics of the linguistic unit, the necessity or the possibility of the relation between the subject and its action, and all the nuances which are semantically associated with them. If we consider modality to be a special content peculiar to different linguistic units which are capable of expressing the (lexical or abstract grammatical) meaning of necessity, possibility (impossibility), with the nuances proceeding therefrom, then we will have preserved the traditional content of the term 'modal' which is implanted in grammar. Modality is not a syntactic category, since the linguistic means of its expression as a semantic category will be separate subclasses of

4 words and phrases, the morphological category of the modal moods (imperative and conjunctive) and modal verbs. Modality comes into contact with syntax only on the plane where its content intertwines with the predicative relation, forming the basis of the sentence. But it would be equally fruitful to regard tense as a syntactic problem. The wide variation in treatments of modality naturally entails a lack of coordination in the understanding of mood. In the research of Soviet linguists in recent years, one often observes that the definitions of modality and of mood coincide, which indicates that all is not well in the solution of this problem, since the definition of lexical, semantic, and syntactic categories (as modality is called) can in no way be the same as that of morphological categories (mood). On the whole, definitions of mood contain a statement of the relation between action and reality, or the relation of the link between the action and its subject to reality, with or without an indication of the person speaking. The conjunctive mood is often defined, in particular, as the non-coincidence of the content of an utterance with reality. There is no need here to repeat the definitions of mood, which have been repeated many times in dissertations and other works. The objections which were raised relative to the definition of modality, naturally, have the same force with respect to mood. In the nonsensical sentence 'It always snows in the summer', no relationship with reality is expressed in the form of the verb. Is it possible to give a single definition of mood in general (all the moods together), or is it necessary to consider each mood separately? It is appropriate to pose a similar question with respect to all grammatical categories. It seems to us that it is possible to give a general definition of a category on the level of universal grammar, reflecting its distinctive properties; but this does not relieve one of the necessity of giving a particular definition for each grammatical category of a given language in terms of the oppositions of which it is composed, and with the set of formal exponents which represent it in each particular language. Corresponding to our definition of modality as a kind of meaning, a particular sort of content, which embraces all the nuances which are in one way or another associated with possibility and necessity, it would be reasonable to give a general definition of mood as a grammatical category which expresses in verbal form the modality (or modal content) of an event. The indicative mood expresses the null relation to modality, being amodal, but the other moods realize modal meaning proper in special forms. The imperative and conjunctive moods are marked members of two modal oppositions therefore they do not contrast with each other; but each enters separately into opposition with the indicative as the unmarked member, in which modality is not indicated. The conjunctive mood can have a varying range of modal nuances, such as supposition, possibility, desire, etc., and can also serve as the morphological indicator of a particular syntactic structure, as, for example, in German, where the conjunctive is associated with the expression of indirect speech. Regardless of how many combined meanings some language or other has in one mood, and regardless of

5

how many morphologically differentiated varieties of the conjunctive mood there are, it will always behave as a single whole on the plane of modal opposition. It is precisely for this reason that there can be no contrast between the varieties of the conjunctive mood. Thus, in German the conjunctive and the conditional do not form an opposition, and also in English the subjunctive (were) and the conditional (would be) do not contrast, but rather are, genetically speaking, syntactically conditioned varieties of a single mood with the general modal content of a problematic supposition. In the histories of various languages, the conjunctive mood has either merged into one (in the ancient Germanic languages, Latin and Russian) or has split into two, as in modern German, French and . English, with a distribution of homogeneous modal meanings and functions between two grammatical forms instead of one. Therefore, the definition of the conjunctive mood (or of its varieties) should be specific to each language, being dependent on the sphere of particular modal meanings which are peculiar to it, and on the formal means which have emerged in the given language. It must also be pointed out that, according to the evidence from various Indoeuropean languages, the splitting of the conjunctive mood into more than two varieties is not observed. (5) It is possible for various Indo-European languages, the splitting of the conjunctive mood tem (6) and which serve to express the particular modal meanings of this mood, but there cannot be a third variety. The varieties of the conjunctive mood always designate a single, general modal categorical meaning which is realized under various (sometimes even identical) syntagmatic circumstances. More will be said about this later. Oppositions in the sphere of mood can be represented in the following way: the indicative mood, as the unmarked member, contrasts on the one hand with the imperative, and on the other, with the conjunctive, regardless of how many members the latter consists of in a given language. For example, this relation can be represented graphically for English as: Im-*-

-In-

CM

where In = indicative, Im = imperative, CM = conjunctive mood, which is split into the varieties S = subjunctive and C = conditional. This opposition is interparadigmatic, and with respect to its members - privative. Summarizing what has been said, we emphasize that modality is not a syntactic, grammatical, or 'linguistic' category, but a semantic category, a form of meaning, which is expressed principally in a generalized form, in the imperative and conjunctive moods, and also in the lexical meanings of modal verbs and certain lexical units. Modality does not express the relation of an utterance to reality, for language interprets all the relations of reality through the interrelation

6

of elements which is peculiar to each given language; otherwise, how could one, for example, explain - through the prism of the relations of reality - the existence of various numbers of tenses and moods in different languages at different times. Modality, as a form of meaning, is especially suited for the modification of the content of an action, which is why it is for the most part expressed through the use of mood. The modal meanings serve as a mediating link between the logical categories of the modality of statement and the grammatical categories of the imperative and conjunctive moods which express in their forms (in a generalized way) the modality of events. NOTES (1) For details concerning the logical and grammatical problem of modality, see the author's article "Esce o probleme modal'nosti v grammatike" [More on the Problem of Modality in Grammar]. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary repetition, bibliographical data on the literature cited in footnotes will be collected in a general bibliography. (2) See: Aristotle's P r i o r and Posterior Analytics, chapter II; I. Kant, Logik, 72ff.; R. Carnap, Meaning and Necessity, 173-177; H. Reichenbach, Elements of Symbolic Logic, 245. (3) W. B. Quine, Elementary Logic, 24; also, Methods of Logic, 1415. (4) See: A. A. Reformatskij, "Cislo i grammatika" [Number and Grammar], 385; V. A. Zvegincev, Semasiologija [Semasiology], 95104. (5) For discussion see the author's article "K tipologii soslagatel'nogo naklonenija v indoevropejskix jazykax" [Towards a Typology of the Conjunctive Mood in the Indo-European Languages]. (6) See ch. Ill of the present book.

I

THE PARADIGMATICS OF THE CONJUNCTIVE MOOD

Before giving the inventory of forms which figure in the expression of the conjunctive mood, it is necessary to define a number of concepts and units which are associated with the topic we are examining. First - what is 'paradigmatics' and how is it related to 'syntagmatics' ? Without becoming involved in a detailed discussion of the problem of the correspondence of paradigmatics and syntagmatics, and of how it is dealt with in contemporary linguistics, we will define these two concepts in the following way: The paradigmatics of the conjunctive mood is an inventory of m o r phological forms which are the grammatical means of expressing the categorial grammatical meaning of a supposed, unreal event, a problematic supposition. It is a system of forms (linked by associative correlations) abstracted from concrete linguistic substance, a set of models of paradigms which are given for the language and which are the patterns for the concrete instances of use of the conjunctive mood in the corresponding environments, like any paradigm of conjugation or declension. However, it is not only the form itself which is meaningful in the paradigm — its content-substance is also meaningful, for any grammatical (morphological) form is a two-sided sign, possessing an expression plane as well as a content plane. This is why so much significance is attached to the study of the character of the correlations (content correspondences) between the members of a paradigm (system) , especially since isolated forms which do not enter into categorial relations with other forms do not exist in grammar. Thus, the task of the paradigmatics of the conjunctive mood is to establish the inventory of forms which serve as the morphological means of expressing the conjunctive mood, and the grammatical meaning of each form, its invariant, that is, the general categorial meaning which correlates with other meanings within the limits of a given category as well as beyond its limits. The task of syntagmatics is to establish the characteristic environments in which the forms of the mood realize their invariant meaning, and the environments in which variants of the categorial meaning can appear under the influence of contextual conditions. For the conjunctive mood, syntagmatics is of paramount importance, since it does not possess a single form which would not be homonymous with a form expressing another category or with a phrase which has a different purpose in the language. Consequently, a central position in our text will be taken by the use of the conjunctive mood in various contextual circumstances and by the definition of the characteristics

8

of the context in which the categorial meaning of its forms is realized, that is, its syntagmatics. The next concepts which will be required in our exposition are those of the grammeme and the microsystem. By grammeme we mean a categorical form, a member of a paradigmatic series as a unit, which bears grammatical content (just as a phoneme designates a unit of the phonological series, and a morpheme - the smallest meaningful unit of the morphological series). Grammeme is a synonym for the term 'form', but, because of its composition, the former is more precise and vivid. A microsystem is a set of verbal grammemes, linked together in a single paradigm by the general nature of the principal distinctive f e a ture for the given microsystem. Thus, one microsystem is d i s tinguished from another by its principal distinctive feature (or f e a tures). So, for example, the active tense-aspect microsystem is d i s tinguished from the passive tense-aspect microsystem by the presence in the latter of the passive m a r k e r , which is absent in the former. The microsystem of the conjunctive mood is dintinguished by the p r e s ence of the sememe of unreality, which is absent in the first two microsystems. In the aggregate, the microsystems form a m a c r o system, or verbal system. Other concepts and units which will be encountered in the text will be defined during the course of the discussion. Now, we proceed to determine the composition of the conjunctive mood microsystem, that is, its paradigmatics. If it is the case for other microsystems that at the very least the composition of their paradigms, except for a few details, has long been defined in grammars and in general is not a matter for disagreement, then in the case of the conjunctive mood microsystem, even the composition of the paradigm has not been conclusively defined, and for quite a few grammarians, especially foreign ones, the very existence of such a paradigm in general is a point of contention. The basic reason for the disagreements is the homonymy of the grammemes of mood. Homonymy had taken shape only in the Modern English period, after the contemporary verbal system had been firmly established. In order to reveal this homonymy and discuss it theoretically, and in order to highlight the formal indications of the existence of a series of homogeneous forms with differing distributions, which will make it possible to demonstrate the different categorial content of the homonymous grammemes, we must take as our point of departure the regularity of the structural organization of the verbal system as a whole. However, in most works devoted to one aspect or another of this subject, only separate forms or microsystems are subjected to analysis; consequently, the general foundation of the paradigmatics of the verb remains unestablished to this day. We will dwell at length only on certain peculiarities of the structural organization of the expression plane and the content plane of the English verbal system, peculiarities which are significant for the conjunctive mood and which we have discovered in the course of the s t r u c tural analysis of the English verb as a whole. They affect every part of the verbal system, and are called structural because they are r e -

9

sponsive to the interaction of the formal and semantic sides of units, and most importantly, because they are responsive to the interrelation of the content of separate units. In other words, they are responsive to the properties of 'structure' on the plane where this concept is examined in contemporary science. (1) By 'structure' one usually means a single whole composed of hierarchically arranged units which are linked among themselves by definite correlations. The first thing which has a bearing on the definition of the composition of the forms (grammemes) of a verbal microsystem is the law of structural uniformity (formal homogeneity) of the formatives. Thus, in verbal microsystems we take into account only those units, in various combinations, which have been established in the basic tense-aspect microsystem, which serves as a privative, unmarked member of interparadigmatic oppositions of verbal microsystems. Therefore, we may not consider, for example, the combination get lost as a form expressing the passive, since there is no such auxiliary verb as get in the tense-aspect microsystem. In accordance with this law, which operates in the Indo-European languages, it is doubtful whether the combination should + infinitive in all persons can be included among the forms of the conjunctive mood, since in the tense-aspect microsystem, this combination is used only for the first person (should do as the form 'future-in-thepast'). The next law of the structural organization of a paradigmatic system is the grammatical potential of a given form, its degree of inclusion of lexical material, its universality. If some unit is found in a restricted context, with a narrow range of verbs and their forms, then such a unit cannot be considered categorial. For example, this requirement is not met by the previously mentioned combination get lost, since it can hardly be used in any context and in any categorial form (for example, *having got received). An important condition for the existence of categorial forms is their opposibility, their mutual correlation. A paradigm does not contain any isolated forms which do not correlate with some other form in terms of some categorial distinctive feature, even if this feature remains unexpressed in one of the two correlating forms. Thus, cases exist only in terms of their relation to each other; person, number, tense, etc., all exist only as opposing members within various oppositions. Therefore, the explication of the nature of the opposition of the categorial forms of any verbal microsystem is a necessary condition for analyzing and understanding it. Any grammatical category is realized in language in the opposition of the forms which express it, which is why so much popularity is currently being enjoyed by the method of oppositional analysis, which comes the closest to revealing the nature of the relations between the members of a paradigmatic system, since oppositions imply connection, and connection is the dialectic form of the existence and interaction of linguistic units, as well as of the units of every other social phenomenon. (2) The principles and laws set out above are relevant to the expression plane as well as to the content plane of morphological forms, since these forms are two-sided units, possessing material substance and

10

meaning; form and meaning always interact, therefore it is sometimes difficult to determine whether such a law has to do only with form or only with meaning. This is relevant to the next two phenomena which are characteristic for the English verb, namely, homonymy and analytical form affect principally the formal side of morphological units, but the criteria for defining them rest on features of meaning. Thus, it is well known that homonymy is an instance of asymmetry of the linguistic sign, since one expression has two (or more) contents. (3) But how can we determine that two contents are included in one morphological form, and how do we distinguish such a phenomenon from polysemy? As the criteria for the homonymy of grammemes, we propose the following: a difference in the categorial meaning of two identical units, a difference in their sets of distinctive features (semes), and their membership in different microsystems. On the other hand, grammemes which belong to only one microsystem are polysemantic. For example: (they) were and (I) were are homonyms, since they have different sets of semes, and consequently belong to different microsystems: in the first case, the verb designates the definite past tense, while in the second case the verb has nothing to do with the past tense, but designates the same tense as that of the finite verb in its immediate (micro) context, and uncertainty of the action. The grammatical meaning of homonyms, naturally, is known from the context, and the indicated features are designated saliently only in the environment, as, for example, in a sentence such as they were all there in comparison with If I were a girl. Thus, the first were has the following set of semes: a strong, marked seme of past tense, and weak, unmarked semes of the active voice and the indicative mood. Person and number are not designated in the form, being made clear through cooccurrence with the subject. In the second were there is a strong seme of unreality, combinedwith a seme of simultaneity. All the semes are known from correlations and are deduced only on the basis of a study of all the oppositions manifested through grammatical features in all verbal microsystems. Consequently, the two grammemes were belong to different microsystems - one to the tense-aspect microsystem, the other to the conjunctive mood. However, if the forms have an identical set of semes and belong to the same microsystem, one may speak only of polysemy. Thus, for example, it has not yet been established whether the grammemes in a conjugational paradigm like I had, he had, we had, they had are homonyms or forms with multiple meaning. Since had always expresses the past indicative, and the expression of person and number is irrelevant for this form - they are syntagmatically conditioned these can only be polysemantic forms, not homonyms. Such a criterion for distinguishing homonymy from polysemy in morphological forms is fully reliable and formal; it should be used in all analogous cases. What sort of criteria for analytical form can be proposed? The e s tablishment of a criterion for analytical form has high priority in the study of the conjunctive mood, since a significant number of the forms which are capable of expressing the notion of uncertain action are

11

analytical in composition. Here we will not enumerate all the features of analytical form; they have been illuminated in a number of works. (4) We will take note here only of the following criteria for analytical form as the expressor of the grammatical category of the verb: an analytical form as a member of a paradigmatic series exists only where it is correlated, as a member of an opposition within a certain grammatical category, with another form which opposes it on the line of expression of an identical grammatical meaning. An analytical form should be universal, and should be distinguished by its repeatability and reproducibility. Its first element is lexically empty and has been changed into an auxiliary. If a construction does not meet these requirements, then it is a syntactic construction, not a morphological form. Thus, had spoken, shall come, would like, etc. , serve unconditionally as models of analytical form, since they can be formed from any verb and function without restrictions within the range of expression of the grammatical category for which they exist in the language, that is, they are reproducible and cover the whole of the verbal lexicon. However, a construction of the type got lost, began to speak is not an analytical form, since in these the first component carries semantic weight, although it is weakened; they do not possess universal scope and are lexically or stylistically restricted, and also, they do not enter into any oppositions in grammatical category. Stylistic, syntactic or lexical restrictions are incompatible with an analytical form, and turn it into a construction. Thus, an analytical form must consist of a totally empty auxiliary verb in combination with a non-finite form of the notional verb, and must be distinguished from semicategorial or free verbal constructions by its universality, its applicability to the overwhelming majority of the syntactic environments which are possible in principle for the expressor of the grammatical category which it represents. This situation has a great bearing on the determination of the membership of the formal means of expressing the conjunctive mood. Since the basic reason for disagreement concerning the membership of conjunctive mood forms is homonymy, it will be possible to construct a conjunctive mood paradigm only after the syntagmatic analysis of all the instances of its use in speech. However, we believe that, since the English language has been studied quite extensively and the set of forms which have been included by various grammarians in its paradigm is well known, we can construct a paradigmatic scheme on the basis of the principles and criteria which were proposed above. This scheme will be to a certain extent hypothetical until syntagmatic analysis provides us with data which confirm it. In case of total homonymy between the forms of the tense-aspect microsystem and the conjunctive mood, syntagmatic factors will be adduced in constructing the paradigmatic series of the conjunctive mood, since otherwise it is difficult to identify a given form. From the principle of structural uniformity, it follows that there is not a single morphological pattern beyond the boundaries of the tense-aspect microsystem which could be reflected in the conjunctive

12

mood microsystem. This situation is above all relevant to languages with a significant degree of analyticity. In this connection, it would be interesting to draw a comparison between the means of expressing the unreal mood in English and in Russian: in Russian the subjunctive mood forms are homonymous with the past indicative form in - 1 'imel by' - 'would have had', and by is a syntactic particle identifying the presence of the modal meaning in the form. In the arsenal of English inflectional or analytical verbal grammemes there are no forms which could serve as a means of expressing unreal action and at the same time would be inflectional modifications o f t e n s e aspect grammemes or would represent a new combination of analytical patterns, reflected in the main microsystem, as is the case with the passive. The fact that such forms are unknown means that it is necessary to search for the means of expressing unreality among the homonyms of the tense-aspect grammemes. In the search for the elements of the paradigmatic scheme of the conjunctive mood, it is necessary to take into consideration, besides the structural uniformity of the formatives of mood, the degree of inclusion of the verbal lexicon by a given paradigm, and the frequency of occurrence of the syntactic patterns which include the formatives of the conjunctive mood, since it is precisely this mood which is most intimately related to sentence type. In many English grammars one can find a long list of forms and even moods which express non-fact, and cases of their use, without any indication of which of them are most often used, and which of them are represented by infrequent syntactic patterns. However, the goal of grammatical theory consists not only in finding general criteria which unify phenomena and describing these phenomena as simply as possible, but also in identifying the major phenomenon, which is distinguished by frequency of recurrence, and then finding a place for secondary facts which are less often encountered, grouping them into typical patterns. A preliminary analysis of a great deal of linguistic data leads us to single out the analytical form pattern of the type would do and its p e r fect counterpart would have done as the basic means of expressing unreality, and also forms which combine in conditional sentence patterns, such as were, did with the perfect series had been, had done. Both of these morphological types have homonyms in the t e n s e - a s pect microsystem. Other analytical formations with various auxiliary verbs, such as may, might, should for all persons, with a greater or lesser degree of grammaticalization, that is loss of inherent lexical meaning, cannot be considered members pf the paradigm. This is primarily because the auxiliary verbs are non-standard: they should be limited to the narrow set of elements which are repeated in the r basic tense-aspect paradigm, and also because of the scarcity oftypes of contexts and syntactic structures in which such formations can be found, which is a direct consequence of the fact that they are nonstandard. Just such a limited frequency of occurrence is also observed with respect to the synthetic means of expressing non-fact, which also is usually assigned to the paradigm of mood— be, give for all persons (type: if he be). The variant nature of this unit, its f r e e interchange-

13

ability with other formations (I suggest he should come = he come), and above all its primarily stylistic function in British English, make it impossible to assign this unit to the paradigm of standard morphological means for expressing the category of mood (for details concerning the place of units of this type, see chapter III). The fact that among the means of expressing non-fact there are some models which, although grammaticalized in a number of cases, are clearly non-systemic, and which are limited in use to certair. syntactic structures, forces the investigator not only to examine the question of the variability of morphological units, but also to consider the possibility that diachronic elements are present in the synchronic system. To elucidate the composition of the conjunctive mood paradigm, we will introduce some historically justified data which will help to clarify the relations within the conjunctive mood microsystem. It is well known that the loss of the inflectional markers of the Old English conjunctive caused the distinction between the present and past conjunctive to disappear. From the present tense only isolated patterns, preserved by the differentiation of the conjunctive and the indicative in the verb to be, were preserved. These forms of the type be, give have lost the features of grammatical category in the modern language, since a pattern which is only found in isolated instances cannot be endowed with these features; for the main criteria for distinguishing grammaticalized forms from accidental formations are reproducibility in speech and abstractability, which is manifested in applicability in any context. For the present conjunctive, the expression of desire or of command, the will of the speaker, were characteristic, and also the expression of supposition connected with the narrative present tense. Thus, concrete-modal meanings, basically optative, were associated with this form, as well as the meaning of problematical action connected with the present tense; that is, it had both modal and tense meaning. (5) The past conjunctive basically expressed supposition, problematic and unreal action, all the more so if it referred to the past. Thus, in Old English the past and present conjunctive were distinguished in modality as well as in tense. In its further development, as the inflectional markers of the conjunctive and their differentiation in tense were lost, the conjunctive proceeded to develop the most generalized meaning of supposition. This is directly connected with the consolidation of the past-tense formatives for designating suppositional action, which in its classical aspect is realized in the conditional construction, from which the modern conjunctive mood originated. However, if there was a single mood in Old English with a common root basis, but with different inflections (present plural makien, finden; past makoden, funden), then why, in the conditional construction which represents the~ba3ic syntactic pattern for the conjunctive mood did two different means for expressing supposition appear, means which are customarily regarded as different moods and which are designated here by the terms 'subjunctive' and 'conditional' ? The answer to this question can be found only if we take into account the parallelism in development and systematic organization of the grammatically contrasting forms and the nature of their distribution. It is well known that at the beginning of

14

the Modern English period, the use of the present tense instead of the future after if, in the indicative, became established in conditional clauses; e . g . , If he has a ticket, he will go to the concert. If this conditional construction is changed into one in the past tense, then the past tense will replace the present, and the future II tense will replace the simple future: We thought that if he had a ticket, he would go to the concert. The homonymy of the past indicative and the subjunctive, and also of the future II and the conditional I (imperfect), brings about the formal coincidence of forms with different grammatical meanings, which can be distinguished from each other only in context, as is the case with all homonyms. Thus, in the environment of the present indicative, the conditional construction is expressed by the subjunctive and the conditional: We are of the opinion that if he had a ticket, he would go to the concert. From what has been said, it follows that the splitting of the single suppositional, unreal mood into two at the contemporary stage is syntactic in origin, and the root of this lies in the systemic symmetry of the various series and forms, which do not permit any lack of coordination in parallel layers and structures. In its two main series of forms - imperfect (subjunctive I) - were, spoke and perfect (subjunctive II) - had been, had spoken - the subjunctive was in origin, a syntactically conditioned morphological variant of the conditional I - would speak - and conditional II - would have spoken, just as in a real conditional construction, the present is a syntactically conditioned variant of the future - in analogical patterns, in which neutralization takes place on the level of expression of future action. Here we are faced with a levelling toward an initial type, which is a generally characteristic linguistic phenomenon; for the indicative, as the most widespread type, is always regarded as initial. It is essential to emphasize that the subjunctive and conditional are variants only in the historical sense, since in the synchronic system they have become varieties of a single conjunctive mood, consolidated in the paradigmatic system, and together supply the hypothetical content of this mood. Thus, the contemporary conjunctive mood developed on the basis of the formatives of the future II - grammaticalized would and should + infinitive. But in conditional constructions, a neutralization takes place on the level of expression in the conditional subordinate clause (If he came instead of If he would come), which led to the consolidation in the language of a particular variety of the conjunctive mood - the subjunctive. Thus, a displacement in the formal means of expression took place within the conjunctive mood: as in all Germanic languages, the f o r m a tives of the conjunctive mood coincide with the formatives of a future tense, in this case future II, and the primordial English formatives of the past (were) survive only in the variant which has become consolidated in the contemporary stage as a result of the neutralization in the expression of future action in conditional subordinate clauses. The old form was reborn under new circumstances. In principle, the formation of the conjunctive mood on the basis of the past tense formatives is the second peculiarity of the Germanic languages which is manifested here (cf. the German conjunctive).

15

As far as we know, the only linguist who has noticed this syntactically conditioned differentiation of the forms of a single mood is A. Tellier. However, in his book he comes to no conclusions concerning the formal composition of the conjunctive mood, and for him the future II and the conditional are a single categorial form; the author merely takes note of the structural parallelism of conditional constructions in various tenses. Tellier also notes that with the loss of inflection, the contrast between the indicative and the subjunctive is transformed into a contrast between the present and the past tenses: if he comes - if he came. Thus, for him the grammeme came has a single categorial meaning, which has not been split into distinctive features of reality and nonreality, incompatible in a single grammeme. (6)

Since the conditional construction is the basic pattern for the mood which expresses nonreal supposition, the basic mood is the conditional, not the subjunctive, which is genetically its variant. In these two varieties of the conjunctive mood, the category of tense has been lost, and only the distinction between simultaneity and priority has been preserved, which can be realized only in a context where it is specified, in the immediate environment, which action (expressed by a verb in the indicative) the action expressed by the two varieties of the conjunctive mood can be prior to or simultaneous with. Tense has vanished from the conjunctive mood because formatives of only one tense - the past - formed its basis; this led to the establishment of the perfect series to designate reference to the past tense of surrounding indicative forms. Thus, the lack of tense distinctions in the conjunctive mood formatives led to a one-dimensional expression of tense relations, erased the category of tense (a category which is generally characteristic of and naturally inherent in mood), and caused the conjunctive mood to be syntactically dependent in two ways - not only with respect to its affinity for particular types of sentences, but also with respect to the expression of tense distinctions in unreal action. The perfect forms of the subjunctive are completely homonymous with the past perfect indicative (had done), while the perfect forms of the conditional (would have done) are homonymous with the perfect future II, which, however, exists only in potential as a redundant form, and is rarely realized in speech. Thus, spawned in the womb of the conditional construction, the modern conjunctive mood split into two unequal parts which have the general grammatical meaning (invariant) of hypothetical action. However, the conditional - the basic hypothetical mood - acquires an additional component of meaning (seme), that of conditionality, precisely as a consequence of the split of the singular concept of supposition into the condition and its logical consequence; and the condition under which the problematic action expressed by the form of the conditional is performed becomes part of its invariant meaning, which is inherent in any context, and can be inferred if it is not materially expressed in the immediate environment. The subjunctive, in its turn, is dependent, and linked with the conditional through its syntactic subordination; it expresses ordinary

16

problematic action, represented by the speaker as non-fact; in combination with an action designated by the conditional, the subjunctive acquires the meaning of a condition which as such is not peculiar to the form itself, but which is introduced by the norms of distribution, the properties of cooccurrence in some syntactic complex. The r e l a tive nature of the subjunctive, and its descent from the subordinate clause, has left a mark on its function in speech beyond the limits of the conditional construction, and rendes it a category of little significance when not in combination with the conditional. The origin of the conditional on the basis of the main clause of a conditional construction, which is more autosemantic than the subordinate clause, renders the conditional a f r e e category, capable of realizing its meaning of supposition, of unreal action imagined by the speaker, in a variety of contexts. The idea that the conditional construction is the base structure for the conjunctive mood receives additional support from the fact that the conditional and the subjunctive do not contrast in use in any identical syntactic environments; where the subjunctive is established mainly in subordinate clauses - the conditional is usually not encountered, and only in the particular pattern of complement clauses following verbs of desire: "I wish the boy were here" (Hemingway), "I wish you would have the courtesy to take that head of yours out of here" (Wodehouse), - can both moods be found. Returning to our initial statement that one should select the most typical and grammaticalized phenomena and distinguish them from secondary phenomena with a l e s s e r range of linguistic material and less potential for use, we shall show that the study of the English conjunctive mood should be first and foremost the study of the conditional, which has acquired the universal status of a grammatical category and which is spreading in use to all types of syntactic s t r u c tures - in simple, coordinate and complex sentences (in main and subordinate clauses). Unfortunately, this is not always taken into consideration in grammars; on the contrary, the content and distributional properties of the conditional attracts little attention in comparison with the less frequent subjunctive constructions (excluding its use in conditional constructions) or other formations which are used in the place of mood, which we will take up in chapter III. The exaggerated attention which has been paid to infrequent patterns testifies to the neglect of numerous indications of linguistic reality, statistical data which can be obtained without special statistical calculations, on the basis of an empirical comparison of the relative privileges of occurrence of the phenomena being described. The conditional is the leading oblique mood for yet another reason: it directly contrasts with the indicative. Any sentence with a verb in the indicative can be transformed into a sentence with the conditional: It has (not) offended him = it would have offended him. He has (not) revealed the truth = he would have revealed the truth; the conditional always implies the inclusion of a governing condition. In the t r a n s formation of two independent sentences which are in the relation of condition-consequence, the translative of condition (if) is introduced, and the logical operator of negation either in the indicative or in the

17

conjunctive mood, since unreality always implies the negation of the truth or falseness of a statement. For example: He did not buy the book; he had no money = if he had the money, he would buy the book. Direct transformation from the indicative to the subjunctive is not possible without inserting special translatives (if, as if and so forth), since the subjunctive depends on the conditional, and its homonymy with the past tense renders it unclear in the absence of translatives and particular distributional conditions. What has been said above does not mean that it is possible to conclude that there is no direct correlation between the subjunctive and the indicative, but it is always distributively conditioned. So, for example, the subjunctive and the indicative are parallel in the patterns if I am - if I were; were transfers the action onto another modal plane of unreality. However, this unreality depends on the nature of the tense relation to the context, which complicates a direct correlation of the indicative and the subjunctive (see Chapter II). Thus, the general course of development of the most abstract mean ning of the oblique mood found its full realization precisely in the conditional, as, f i r s t of all, the most independent mood in the syntactic sense, and also in correspondence with its formal structure, being based on the formatives of the past tense and partially homonymous with the future n . Historically, the formation of a formative which, as an indicator of unreal mood, is homonymous with the future II, was not only conditioned by purely syntactic considerations, but was also stimulated by the modal proximity of the future and the conjunctive mood, which is all the more pronounced in the case of the future tense which is viewed from the temporal standpoint of the past. Supposition is the common component of meaning of the two, but in the future its realization is projected, the action is predicted, while in the conjunctive mood the supposition takes on a nuance of uncertainty, of doubt, which can be strengthened in certain distributional conditions, or in perfect forms in comparison with imperfect forms. All these preliminary observations, which to a significant degree contain elements of history as well as of synchronic syntagmatics, are indispensable as a basis for the paradigmatic composition of the conjunctive mood. They help us explain which forms represent a s y s tem, which oppositions they take part in, and which formations r e main outside the system through their failure to take part in categorial oppositions and their lack of the universal status of a grammatical category. Consequently, the formal system of the conjunctive mood contains two series of grammemes which mutually contract along the axis of the expression of conditioned and unconditioned action. These are, f i r s t , a series which includes the auxiliary verbs would, should, which are homonymous with series IV, the relative future (future n), in the tense-aspect microsystem, and second, a series which is s i m i lar in its morpheme structure to series II, the past tense, in the initial microsystem, with the difference lying in the distribution of m o r phemes with respect to the category person-number in forms which include the verb were. (See Figure I). The first series in the conjunctive mood paradigm is designated by

18

Figure 1 Paradigmatic outline of the conjunctive mood microsystem Active Perfect series

Imperfect series Subjunctive

Imperfect

Continuous

Perfect

(were), moved

were moving

had moved

would (should) be moving

would (should) have moved

Conwould (should) ditional move

Perfect continuous had been moving would (should) have been moving

Passive Subjunctive

Imperfect

Continuous

Perfect

were moved

were being moved

had been moved

Conwould (should) ditional be moved

would (should) have been moved

the term 'imperfect' rather than 'indefinite', because the idea of an indefinite series is associated with the category of tense, which it expresses and which, for reasons already pointed out, is absent in the conjunctive mood. (7) Likewise, in the microsystem of the nonfinite forms, it is the opposition imperfect-perfect along the axis of the category of temporal relativity (8) which is relevant, and the imperfect series is the unmarked member of this opposition. Just as in the non-finite forms, in the imperfect series it is possible to express simultaneity with any temporal plane expressed in the nearest finite verb in the indicative which is connected with the conjunctive mood by the norms of distribution and by the content of the utterance. The opposition of temporal relativity is privative, and it can be neutralized under contextual conditions where simultaneity or precedence are immaterial for the elucidation of the categorial reference of the forms which are homonymous with the indicative; for example, in the context of the present tense, where any grammeme of type II or IV of the tense series will have the meaning of the conjunctive mood subjunctive or conditional: I expect he would do the same or would have done the same. Aspectual opposition also exists, as in the basic microsystem; but in connection with the relative character of temporal differentiation in the conjunctive mood, it is distinguished by its insignificant reproducibility in speech, especially with regard to the perfect continuous

19

series. The extra-temporal nature of the action expressed by conjunctive mood f o r m s , the lack of correlation with a definite temporal plane, make it immaterial to detail an action in terms of its duration, since such an extra-temporal action has a more abstract, general nature in comparison with an action which is detailed with respect to a definite temporal axis. Consequently, the basic opposition in the conjunctive mood m i c r o system, just as in the non-finite forms, is the opposition of temporal relativity, which runs through both the active and the passive. Corresponding to this, what are the distinctive features into which the grammatical content of the grammemes of the conjunctive mood is analyzed? First of all, the categorial substance of the forms of the conjunctive mood is elucidated only in context. Isolated grammemes like were, smoked, were moving, should speak, e t c . , give no indication of their own significance. In those cases where such grammemes are defined by distributional conditions (which will be discussed in chapt e r II) as belonging to the microsystem of mood, one may consider the type-forms spoke or were (imperfect subjunctive) to contain first of all the feature of mood - a seme of unreal, problematic supposition (hypotheticalness), plus the feature of unmarkedness for temporal relativity. Furthermore, such type-forms are negatively characterized by the absence of the seme of conditionality. The type-forms had spoken, in accordance with the addition of the second element, should have a supplementary seme. The combination of have with a participle II adds the seme of precedence not connected with any concrete temporal plane. Thus, if the presence of the seme of hypotheticalness is established by distributional laws, then this p e r fect series loses its past tense characteristics and acquires an extratemporal nature, from which it follows that, just as with the non-finite f o r m s , precedence is defined here in relation to the unit of the environment which is relevant for the realization of the grammatical meaning of the given form. Consequently, tense is entirely relative in the subjunctive, just as it is in the conditional, where the formal markers do not reflect any temporal characteristics, since they do not change in agreement with the temporal reference of the utterance. Auxiliary verbs in the conditional, the principal one being would, which is steadily acquiring universality and is ousting should even from first-person narrative, also give no indication by themselves of the temporal reference of an action or of mood. The basic distinctive features in the type-forms would (should) do and would (should) have done, which are defined as grammemes of mood according to distributional norms, remain the same as in the forms of the subjunctive, which testifies to the membership of the subjunctive and the conditional in a single mood; but, in addition to the basic semes and the marked or unmarked temporal reference, the forms of the conditional have an additional seme of conditionality, which is always present in them and which manifests itself to a greater or lesser degree depending, again, on distributional conditions. This seme of conditionality has become so embedded in the content of the grammemes of the conditional, that even in isolation, such a form as would have come,

20

which almost never contrasts with the formally homonymous future II perfect, because of the redundancy of the latter, evokes an association with the condition of the fulfilment of the action specified by the verb. In the grammemes of the subjunctive or the conditional which are complicated by progressive or passive m a r k e r s , the corresponding semes are correspondingly added. Thus, here, just as in the tenseaspect microsystem, the distinctive features of the grammeme are reflected in its formal structure, although their definition is complicated by the requirement that the syntagmatic environment of the grammeme be analyzed, after which the form can be isolated and subjected to paradigmatic analysis. We will assume that the p a r a digms which we will examine are composed of grammemes which have already been isolated on the basis of empirical syntagmatic data. Thus, in both varieties of the conjunctive mood, the main opposition is the contrast of forms which do not indicate precedence with forms which do indicate precedence, which is marked, as usual, in combinations of have with a participle II. The common nature of the invariant distinctive features of the subjunctive and the conditional is indisputable formal proof that the subjunctive and the conditional belong to a common grammatical category. There are no oppositions between these two varieties of mood, but there is syntactically motivated coexistence, with a corresponding distribution of function in speech. If there are no oppositions between the subjunctive and the conditional, and neither of them participates individually in any special opposition in mood, it follows that they can in no way be considered to be different moods. The co-occurrence of the two types of grammemes of the subjunctive and the conditional, in conditional constructions, in conformity to the types of syntactic s t r u c tures which are specified for each of them, also proves the general nature of their categorial significance. This gives us grounds to call the subjunctive and the conditional varieties of a single conjunctive mood. For ease of exposition, and in connection with the multiple o r i gin of the forms, we will adhere to the designation 'subjunctive' and 'conditional'. If we take problematic supposition to be the invariant of the g r a m matical meaning of the English conjunctive mood, then we can obtain a particular definition of the English conjunctive mood as a mood which expresses problematic supposition in the aggregate of forms of the subjunctive and the conditional, which are distributed in accordance with types of syntactic constructions. The distinction between the subjunctive and the conditional is expressed, furthermore, by the presence of a supplementary seme of conditionality in the conditional and its absence in the subjunctive. The basic categorial opposition in the p a r a digms of the subjunctive and the conditional is the opposition in t e m poral relativity, expressed in the perfect series, which designates precedence and which contrasts with the imperfect series, which lacks such a marker and c a r r i e s the meaning of simultaneity for all tenses. The conjunctive mood contrasts with the indicative, as the unmarked member of an interparadigmatic opposition in the grammatical category of mood. This contrast is directly implemented by the conditional,

21

since the subjunctive contrasts with the indicative through the instrumentality of the conditional or under particular syntagmatic conditions. However, there are a number of different concrete-modal meanings which are peculiar to the oblique moods in various languages - meanings which are not expressed in the English conjunctive mood, in its systemic forms which comprise the paradigm. In this connection the question must be posed whether it is possible for non-systemic forms to exist which possess a certain degree of grammaticality and abstractability, but which do not participate in a paradigm based on r e g ular oppositions and including only those units which are fully abstracted and grammaticalized, leaving no room for doubt concerning their membership in the ranks of genuinely grammatical formal means on the level of grammatical category. Such extra-systemic formations, as has already been pointed out, can be elements which survived from some historical stage in the transformation of the formal means of the language, or they can be newer, more recent units, which arose as compensation for oppositions which were lost during the course of development. How can one prove that such grammemes as be for all persons, or the finite form based on the verb stem without ^s in the third person singular (of the type if he give), are outside the system ? Let us suppose that these remnants of present conjunctive forms comprise a regular series, contrasting, let us say, in tense with the subjunctive series. In principle, it is logical for the conjunctive to have both the present and the past tense, as was the case in Old English. But it is perfectly clear that temporal contrasts have been completely eradicated here, since for the purpose of expressing past action, the subjunctive has given birth to the perfect series, which due to its relative nature is capable of expressing not only priority to the moment of speech, but priority in general to any tense associated with an indicative verb in the immediate environment. Thus, the subjunctive in no way contrasts with the present conjunctive along the tense axis. The present conjunctive, for its part, as a remnant form did not subsequently differentiate the perfect series, which is the basis for the special nature of the English conjunctive mood; consequently, the present conjunctive drops out of this opposition altogether. The departure of the present conjunctive from the system had a direct consequence: a limitation on the syntagmatic axis. In essence there is not a single type of syntactic construction for which only the present conjunctive is characteristic, if we exclude frozen clichés like Be it so, which are completely idiomatic and furnish no proof whatsoever of the grammaticalization of the present conjunctive. If we now bring in the r e s t of the properties of the present conjunctive (which will be examined in detail in chapter III): substitutability for the other variants of the conjunctive mood (synonymy), stylistic coloration and a consequent total lack of grammatical universality, then it becomes clear that the present conjunctive has completely dropped out of the paradigmatic system of the conjunctive mood, existing in it as a diachronic form which is not assimilated in the contemporary structure of conjunctive mood forms. In speaking of the standardness of the formal side of the present

22

conjunctive, it should be noted that, basically, this morphological type has been preserved to a significant degree because of the verb be, and the form be itself has no homonym in the tense-aspect m i c r o system, but merely preserved an analog in the infinitive. This is another formal argument against the systemic nature of the present conjunctive, in spite of the fact that the present conjunctive forms of other verbs have likenesses in the indefinite s e r i e s . As for the notion that the present conjunctive can be considered some kind of separate, special mood, this of course cannot be entertained, for the reasons indicated above. The isolation of the present conjunctive as a special mood is impossible, if we take into consideration the contrastive potential of the morphological units, the universality of the grammatical category and the standard nature of the means of expressing it. The present conjunctive has lost its oppositions in all grammatical categories - it has neither aspect, nor tense, nor temporal relativity - and it is isolated from the other verbal means. The present conjunctive does not have its own invariant of grammatical meaning, nor does it have the corresponding distinctive features. Another construction which does not participate in the systemic contrasts of the conjunctive mood is the one with should for all p e r sons plus an infinitive (of the type I suggest that you should stay), which is often assigned to the conjunctive mood or set aside in a special mood. But this, in contrast to the present conjunctive, is not a diachronic element, but a new formation, reflecting the current process of grammaticalization of constructions with modal verbs; however, it has not acquired all the features of a member of the s y s tem, but has remained outside it, because of its limited use and its lack of a clear grammatical meaning which could contrast with other related categories. Moreover, this construction is distinguished by the non-standard nature of its f i r s t component, since should is encountered only as a modal verb, constructions with would being p r i mary in the tense-aspect system. The presence of even a weak lexical meaning also obviates the question of affiliation with the formatives of a grammatical category; most important, the invariant meaning of these constructions, as well as of the present conjunctive, does not contrast in any way with the categorial meaning of the subjunctive or the conditional, with which it does not form any of pair. The idea that the construction should plus infinitive lacks paradigmatic grammaticalization is also supported by the impossibility of contracting its formative as in r d , which is usual for any systemic grammeme. Thus, on the expression plane as well as on the plane of invariant content, and also in accordance with the norms of standard syntactic context, the present conjunctive and the construction should plus infinitive lie outside the paradigmatic system of the conjunctive mood, and lack the features and the universality of grammatical category. Because of the fact that these units provide the same set of meanings which is peculiar to the unreal moods in a number of languages, including Old English, it becomes necessary to define their place in the general system of means for expressing actions with the c o r r e sponding content, all the more so because their semi-grammaticalized or even grammaticalized character to some extent makes them a part

23

of the morphological structure of the verb. This is taken up in chapter III. In addition to all the features indicated, the extra-systemic f o r m a tions lie outside the regular oppositions because of the way in which their formatives correspond temporally with the tense-aspect m i c r o system. Thus, the present conjunctive corresponds with series I, the present tense, whereby it lies outside the general system of temporal correspondence for forms of the conjunctive mood, which are based on the formatives of the past tense. As far as constructions with should plus infinitive are concerned, although should is historically a past tense formative, in the synchronic system it cannot be correlated with any series in the tense-aspect microsystem which has a correlate in the present tense; it is isolated, without a correlative pair. If the verbal system contained a form which could be correlated with shall for all persons, then it would be possible to speak of a correlation in the dichotomy present - past, p e r meating the verbal system wherever the category of tense is found, and being transmuted into the correlation simultaneity - precedence wherever the category of tense is replaced by temporal relativity. The formatives of the conjunctive mood are based on those formatives of the past tense which have correlative pairs on the plane of the dichotomy 'present - past 1 in the tense-aspect microsystem (spoke speak, would do - will do). The principle of equilibrium and symmetry of paradigmatic series is manifested in this correspondence. If the microsystem of mood has itself lost the basic dichotomy present past, because of various historical reasons, then at any rate the series with which it corresponds on the formal plane possesses a correlative pair on the plane of this dichotomy. It is also interesting to note that the exclusion of the pattern should plus infinitive from the system r e ceives additional support from the fact that, in spite of its preterite base, should, in t e r m s of content, has the meaning of the present tense, not the past tense, in the contexts which are characteristic for it; in this respect it correlates on the plane of synonymy, rather than of contrast, with the other non-systemic means- the present conjunctive, which itself also is a violation of the general temporal c o r r e lation of verbal formatives (cf.: it is necessary that he should go or go at once). The subjunctive and the conditional are invariable universal m e m bers of an opposition in mood, but the present conjunctive and the pattern should plus infinitive are accidental members of the system; they do not form any opposition of their own, and they do not have either their own categorial meaning or forms which correlate with systemic forms. Although the subjunctive correlates with the conditional (although not on the plane of opposition), the non-systemic units are in no way correlated with the conditional. This is also evidence of their peripheral nature, for the conditional is the basic unreal mood, the basis for contrasts in mood. All the formations which comprise a definite series and which c o r respond to rather than contradict a general formal structure are m e m bers of a system; this system may be redundant, but for all that it is

24

a system, bound by particular correlations; it is not a chance accumulation of units which lack any direct ties with both particular and general systems of morphological forms of a given word-class. The specific character of the contemporary English conjunctive mood consists in the fact that the membership of its forms in the microsystem of mood is apprehended through their combinatory affinities on the syntagmatic axis; therefore, the paradigmatic analysis which has been presented can provide only preliminary data. A more precise definition of the conjunctive mood system and the identification of its peripheral elements can be carried out on the basis of a syntagmatic analysis, which is accomplished in the following chapters. A BRIEF SURVEY OF THE PARADIGMATIC SYSTEM OF THE VERB AS A WHOLE Since it is impossible in this text to shed light on the regularities which are characteristic for the organization of all the microsystems of the English verb, it is expedient to give a brief survey of those facts which are most essential for an understanding of the correlation of the conjunctive mood microsystem and other verbal microsystems. First, we offer a very simple table which illustrates at a glance the homonymy in the vertical columns of grammemes and the general distribution of the categories and grammemes throughout the microsystems. For convenience of inspection, groups of homonyms are marked with identical lines (see Figure 2). Structural observations of the general system of verbal forms can be reduced to the following basic ones: the distribution of forms representing the category of tense and temporal relativity shows that, while tense has at least three dimensions, temporal relativity consists of only two dimensions, which permeate all the microsystems. The structure of the categorial grammemes of the microsystems of non-finite forms and of mood are identical, and unilinear with the optional opposition in aspect and the obligatory opposition in temporal relativity. Tense permeates only two of the tense-aspect microsystems: the active and the passive. The types of grammatical markers and their invariant content are analogous in all the microsystems. The composition and form of cooccurrence of the formatives of the verbal categories are also general in nature, the microsystems of the indicative mood (active and passive) serving as the initial pattern for other microsystems. The formal structural composition of a verbal grammeme determines its invariant, general content. The different structural principles which lie at the basis of the verb are reflected in the general scheme. These are the principles of binary opposition, structural uniformity, redundancy, symmetry, and systematic equilibrium. The extent of penetration of interparadigmatic homonymy is clearly visible on the chart. Only the passive has no homonyms outside the passive microsystems. The passive microsystems are inherent to all sectors of the verb: tense-aspect, mood, non-finite forms. The most isolated category is mood: it is lacking in the non-finite forms.

25

The recurring types of morphemes in parallel and symmetrically a r ranged series testify to the intercrossing oppositions in the microsystems . The interparadigmatic oppositions are unidimensional, for the distinctive feature which is expressed in the dominant member is not r e peated in other microsystems. As for intraparadigmatic oppositions, they are all multi-dimensional, because they are proportional; the features of one opposition are repeated in the next one, operating in the next parallel row. The composition and correlation of the members of interparadigmatic oppositions are not identical. This depends on their content, for an opposition is a phenomenon on the plane of grammeme content, which above all is reflected in the ability of these oppositions to undergo neutralization. An interparadigmatic opposition can be more or less powerful depending on how remote the meanings of its members are from each other. Thus, the active and passive microsystems are polar members of an opposition, semantically r e mote from each other, and this polarity is reinforced by the distinct nature of the sentence patterns. On the other hand, the indicative conjunctive mood opposition is weaker; its members can approach each other and meet, and consequently be neutralized, since the basic content of mood - modality - is also inherent to the grammemes of the indicative, especially future I and future II. We may consider that, on one hand, there is a contrast of the indicative and conjunctive mood as a whole, each in possession of its own formal and semantic features; while on the other hand, the future, especially future II, and the conjunctive mood or its basic form, the conditional - contrast along the axis of degree of modal expression. They form an opposition in distributional contrastiveness, but this opposition is gradual because of the logical relation of its members, for its members express the degree of an indicated feature - the degree of unreality of a supposition. All this points to the multiformity of the relations between the contents of the grammemes which comprise the verbal system. The entire conjunctive mood series (subjunctive and conditional) is homonymous, either partially or completely, with some series in the tense-aspect microsystem. In all homonymous s e r i e s , the grammatical content of a form can be ascertained only through a syntagmatic analysis of the immediate environment which has a bearing on the meaning of the form. Therefore, the more the microsystem has been penetrated by homonymy, the more importance syntagmatic analysis acquires. We will briefly summarize the criteria for the subdivision of the conjunctive mood paradigm. The peculiarities of the historical development of the conjunctive mood forms in English led to their being homonymous with tense-aspect forms. On the basis of the incompatibility of the features of reality and unreality, and taking into consideration the formal similarity to tense-aspect grammemes and the c r i teria of analytical form and grammatical potential, the conjunctive mood is subdivided, under certain conditions of distribution, into two varieties: the conditional and the subjunctive. These are formally c o r rectable with the past and future II series of the tense-aspect microsystem. The original structure for the contemporary conjunctive mood

26

co g g •rH "ë o o -M O •e

« S

S .tí

• I I * , ¿ j § ¡

r ~ I 0)1 ¡ S i

. s >

s ai .tí œ

ö (U

ljf=j

m

S

m g

hC cl

i '-ë o o

0)

u a> a S

• o+-> 'S tM CD •a e

co Ol > o S

ta'

R ili

o

o >

tí a> to ai ÍH a

p o o u i

0) m cd a

0)

3

3

8 A I }

B

0 T P U I

ed tí O

-4-> O tí .3

>

0) 73 tí O O

Ja 3 to

p o o u i 9 A i ; o u n f u o o

tí

bx>

S :

ñ

1—1

HH >-H

OI

0)

.9* ' o •r-l t i cd a

a o •rH +->

ti

CS a

> g

tí

TS

2