The category of mood and its semantic content

THE CATEGORY OF MOOD IN MODERN ENGLISH

1. The category of mood and its semantic content.
2. Debatable issues connected with the interpretation of the category of mood:

v The problem of the number of moods.

v Questionable issues within different moods:

ü the categorial opposition and the meaning of the Indicative;

ü the Imperative mood: the Imperative versus the Indicative mood; the status of “let” forms;

ü the problem of the Subjunctive.

Language avails itself of a number of means to denote the attitude of the speaker towards the action. There are different ways of indicating reality or possibility of an action: modal verbs, modal words (perhaps, probably, possibly) as well as the whole system of the use of tenses. All this falls under the category of modality. The nature (the plane of expression and the plane of content) of modality makes it possible to consider its status on the borderline of grammar, and lexicology, and even phonetics since intonation can be a powerful means of expressing modality as well. The morphological means employed by language constitute the basis of a verbal morphological category, that of mood. The Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics contains a note that mood is a grammatical category distinguishing modality [Matthews 1997: 231].

When it comes to the definition of the category of mood, approaches differ drastically, and what is recognized by all linguists is the fact that mood as a category “expresses the speaker’s attitude towards the action” [Хлебникова 2001: 110]. In other approaches this definition is extended and specifies the nature of the attitude. Thus, mood is understood as a grammatical category expressing the relation of the action denoted by the verb to reality as stated by the speaker. This statement is furnished with the examples that contain the verb forms testifying to different modes the action is represented in its relation to reality.

Cf.: She is playing – the action is looked upon as real, taking place at the moment of speaking.

Go and play in the yard! – is an expression of a request.

She would be playing if she hadn’t fallen ill – conveys an imaginary, hypothetic action.

What linguists unanimously recognize is the fact that the category of mood presents a disputable issue in Modern English Grammar. The list of forms, their semantics, and the principles of analysis present certain difficulties that result in diverse opinions and ways this category is discussed in linguistic description.

1. Debatable issues connected with the interpretation

of the category of mood

There are different angles from which the category of mood is viewed. Mention should be made of a number of issues treated differently in the course of linguistic study. Describing the category under analysis grammarians face the problems of (1) the opposition forming the category, (2) the number of moods, (3) subcategorization of the mood system, (4) the variety of verb-forms belonging to the domain of mood.

On the whole, the category of mood in Modern English has given rise to so many heated discussions and so many issues were put to doubt and called in question that it is seems hardly possible to arrive at any more or less convincing and universally acceptable conclusion concerning the problem under study. This sentiment was expressed by B.A. Ilyish in 1971 and still holds true. Indeed, the only points in the sphere of mood which have not so far been disputed seem to be the following: (a) there exists the category of mood in English, and (b) there are at least two moods in Modern English, one of which is the Indicative and the other may be either the Imperative or the so-called Subjunctive.

The problem of the number and types of moods can be rooted in the elaborate analysis of this category which is carried out on historical, comparative and semantic basis. In this case the list threatens to be endless: for instance in the discussion presented by M. Deutchbein in his ‘System of New English Syntax ’ he singles out four main moods: der Rogitativus, der Optativus, der Voluntativus, der Expectativus. As submoods he singles out: der Indikativus, der Irrealis, der Potentialis, der Konzessivus, der Nezessarius, der Permessivus, der Dubitativus, etc. The list could be really unending as he takes into account all the varieties of subjective modality in English. Such a scheme is based on the attitudes of the speaker’s mind. But such a survey can become too complicated.

O. Jespersen criticizes M. Deutchbein pointing out that it would be possible to subdivide the given list into two groups: the first with 11 groups, containing an element of will, and the second with 9 moods, containing no element of will. There may indeed be many moods if the researcher leaves the safe ground of verbal forms actually found in a language.

Traditional grammar singles out three moods in Modern English: the Indicative, the Imperative and the Subjunctive[61]. The use of the Indicative mood shows that the speaker represents the action as real. The personal attitude is minimized in this usage. H. Sweet calls it fact-mood. The Indicative Mood is the basic mood of the verb and has the most developed system.

Nevertheless this interpretation and understanding of the Indicative as well as the moods it stands in opposition to, is called in question. Guided by the morphemic principle L.S. Barkhudarov recognizes only the Indicative and the Imperative moods with the underlying opposition of an urging, expressed by the Imperative versus an extensive form of the Indicative, which does not express this meaning. Thus, the Imperative is the strong, marked member of the opposition while the Indicative is the weak form. The Indicative acquires the concrete meanings of reality or possibility due to certain contexts [Бархударов 1975: 134-135].

M.Y. Blokh singles out three moods and suggests his treatment of the categorial opposition and meaning. He believes that “the category of mood expresses the character of connection between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting the process as a fact that really happened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i.e. the subject of a hypothesis, speculation, desire” [Блох 1983: 186]. This enables the grammarian to make an assumption that “the functional opposition underlying the category as a whole is constituted by the forms of oblique mood meaning, i.e. those of unreality, contrasted against the forms of direct mood meaning, i.e. those of reality, the former making up the strong member, latter, the weak member of the opposition” [Блох 1983: 186]. Thus, the semantic content of the category determines reality or unreality of an action. Unreality is expressed by the Subjunctive mood. The Subjunctive mood includes two sub-systems, the Spective as the mood of attitudes, and the Conditional as the mood of appraising causal-conditional relations of processes. The Imperative mood lies within the Spective mood (as part of the Subjunctive mood) as both are opposed to the Indicative that has an absolutive expression of the category of time [Блох 1983: 189-190, 202].

I.B. Khlebnikova views the correlation between moods as the opposition of the Indicative mood to the Imperative mood, on the one hand, and the Conjunctive, on the other. The Imperative and the Conjunctive are two marked members of the privative opposition in mood [Хлебникова 2001: 86]. She holds that the Indicative expresses “the null relation to modality, whereas the other two moods, as marked members, realize some modal meaning proper <…>. The Imperative denotes command, request, advice, admonition, etc. The Conjunctive mood in English denotes different nuances of the supposition, problematic (im)possibility – everything that is not an unaccomplished fact, and is not a definite plan for future” [Хлебникова 2001: 86-87]. Further, the subtypes of the Conjunctive mood do not stand in opposition to each other as they have a categorial meaning in common which is expressed in different syntactic structures.

Thus the categorial opposition comprises two mood forms (The Indicative ÷ the Imperative), or three mood forms (the Indicative, the Imperative and the Subjunctive) in different oppositions: two mood forms on the first stage (the Indicative ÷ the Spective) and two more on the next stage (the Spective non-Imperative ÷ the Spective Imperative) or three moods (The Indicative opposed to the Imperative and the Conjunctive).

The Imperative mood (A.I. Smirnitsky, O.S. Akhmanova, M.A. Ganshina, N.M. Vasilevskaya, L.S. Barkhudarov, B.A. Ilyish, V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Ioffic, B.S. Khaimovich & B.J. Rogovskaya) represents an action as a command, urging, request addressed to one’s interlocutor. It is a direct expression of one’s will. Therefore it is much more subjective. Its modal meaning is very strong and distinct.

The Imperative mood in English is represented by the only form, i.e. – Come!, for instance, without any suffix or ending. It differs from other moods in several important points. The majority of linguists believe that the Imperative has no person, number, tense or aspect distinctions, and which is crucial for its linguistic status, it is limited in use to one type of sentence, i.e. imperative sentences. Usually a verb in the Imperative has no pronoun acting as the subject. However the pronoun may be used in emotional speech: e.g. You leave me alone.

Though this view on the constitutive features of the Imperative is shared by a significant number of scholars, there are other approaches to the problem as well. For instance, L.S. Barkhudarov emphasizes the fact that the Imperative expresses the category of person. Hence, the verb-forms in the sentences like Somebody go and fetch me a piece of chalk, Long live our country, I demand that he go there, should be considered belonging to the Imperative. He adds that this form is syntactically bound if used with the 1^st and 2^nd person. The Imperative is opposed to the Indicative mood in the present tense system. Past tense forms do not distinguish these moods [Бархударов 1975: 135-136].

The Imperative mood is characterized by specific intonation, without which the form loses the meaning of the Imperative and becomes the form of the infinitive. There is a certain resemblance between the infinitive and the Imperative both in form and in meaning, because as far as the meaning is concerned the form of the Imperative doesn’t express any actions, but only urges to do something. The same goes right for the infinitive for it does not express any action, it only gives a name to an action. This resemblance of the infinitive and the Imperative served as the foundation for the view that there is no Imperative mood in Modern English. This viewpoint was criticized by many linguists (L.S. Barkhudarov, N.A. Kobrina, E.A. Korneyeva, I.P. Ivanova). These linguists emphasize that the negative forms of the infinitive and the imperative – not to go ÷ don’t go – are quite different. Moreover, forms don’t be, don’t do are analytical forms of the Imperative and serve as a solid argument for the recognition of this mood.

There is another questionable area within the Imperative Mood. Some linguists are of the opinion that there are more analytical forms within the Imperative mood, i.e. the construction with let + V. Let is semantically weakened and can be recognized as an auxiliary. Prof. G.N. Vorontsova gives a detailed analysis of these constructions to prove that they are analytical forms of the Imperative:

1. Sentences like Let’s let the newspaper reporters do anything they want to prove the fact that unlike the 2^nd let which is a notional verb the first let is devoid of any lexical meaning.

2. It is reasonable to treat the Objective case pronouns in the sentences like Let me be frank, Let him look out, Let them both see, as subjects.

3. An order can be addressed not only to the second person but to the third person as well: Let someone make an offer.

4. The recognition of the let -constructions as analytical forms of the Imperative would make the Imperative a developed morphological system [Вороцова 1960: 251-258].

The majority of linguists (B.S. Khaimovich & B.J. Rogovskaya, N.A. Kobrina, E.A. Korneyeva) think it rather doubtful that let -forms are analytical forms of the Imperative. They point out that there is some difference in meaning between Go and Let him go. In the second sentence no direct urging is expressed as it should be typical of the imperative. The same occurs in sentences like Let me think, which is rather a suggestion on the part of the speaker but not an order.

Interestingly, in modern grammar books there can be found a view point close to that expressed by G.N. Vorontsova. P. Kroeger calls let- constructions Hortative mood. This mood is a special mood for softened commands and exhortation [Kroeger 2006: 163].

But the most controversial issue is the so-called Subjunctive Mood. Even the diversity of the names it gets testifies to the complexity of the problem. The main difficulty as far as this mood is concerned is the fact that there is no straightforward mutual relation between meaning and form. Sometimes the same form expresses different meanings in different syntactic environment (I think we should come here tomorrow // If we knew he wants us, we should come to see him). Sometimes different forms express the same meaning (I suggest we go/ I suggest we went/ I suggest we should go). Moreover, the modal meaning is also expressed by modal verbs (May all your wishes come true). Thus if we base our classification on the meaning, it’ll embrace numerous forms. For instance, H. Sweet singled out thought-statements as opposed to fact-statements. Thought-statements embrace the conditional (should see, would see), the permissive (may/might + V), the compulsive (to be to), and use of tenses or tense-mood (временнóе наклонение). Under the heading of the Subjunctive G. Curme singled out the Optative (Part we in friendship. I will do all I can. You shall have some cake.) and the Potential (That would have been rather difficult. Could he have meant it?)

If we take into account the only criterion of form, then the existence of the Subjunctive mood can be called in question. Thus, Prof. L.S. Barkhudarov did not recognize the Subjunctive mood owing to its formal characteristics, which are similar with the Indicative mood. O. Jespersen also spoke about the imaginative use of tenses. He held that unreality is expressed by past time verbs: I wish I had money enough to pay you. You speak as if I had money enough. N.A. Kobrina and E.A. Korneyeva believe that the modal meaning is a structural meaning and is due to a certain syntactic environment (cf.: He went there ÷ If only he went there! If he went there I would be happy.). The only forms that are considered to be special forms of the Subjunctive mood are the following: he be, he go, I were, he were, all the rest of the forms used to render hypothetical meaning are homonymous with the form of the Indicative mood and it is difficult to understand whether it is the Indicative or the Subjunctive (cf.: She hinted that the play would be improved by cutting – the form would be improved may be understood as the Future-in-the Past and as the Conditional).

A.I. Smirnitsky and his followers [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya 1964] distinguish between Subjunctive I, Subjunctive II, the Conditional and the Suppositional. These types of the Oblique moods are syntactically bound and, thus, are used in certain syntactic constructions.

Guided by the intention to eliminate the complexity of this terminology and to systematize the verb-forms and their meanings, M.Y. Blokh arrives at the conclusion that there are three types of the Spective mood as the mood of attitudes. This mood is responsible for the expression of the meaning of supposition, speculation, suggestion, recommendation, inducement of various degrees of insistence including commands [Блох 1983: 188]. In addition to this, he singles out the conditional. All in all, there are four types of the subjunctive mood: the pure Spective (It was recommended that the elections start on Monday), the modal Spective (may/might+ Infinitive, should+infinitive, let+Objective), the stipulative Conditional (I wish my brain weren’t in such a whirl all the time), and the consective Conditional (If the peace-keeping force had not been on the alert, the civil war in that area would have resumed anew) [Блох 1983: 202]. The linguist distributes traditional synthetic, analytical forms and phrases with modal verbs under these four headings. Needless to say, this classification is a good proof of the complexity of the issue it was designed to clarify.

I.B. Khlebnikova differentiates between two sub-sets within the Conjunctive, i.e. the Subjunctive (moved, were moving, had moved, had been moving) and the Conditional (would/ should move, would/ should be moving, would/ should have moved, would/ should have been moving). These two subtypes of the Conjunctive are tied to different syntactic contexts. The two varieties stand in complementary distribution [Хлебникова 2001: 52, 89-90]. I.B. Khlebnikova does not recognize phrases with modal verbs as belonging to the domain of the morphological category of mood. B.A. Ilyish expressed a similar viewpoint in 1948 [Ильиш 1948: 189]. Very close to this conception is the theory developed by V.V. Gurevich. Nevertheless he sounds more radical as in his opinion the Subjunctive mood is realized through two forms which cannot be considered as two moods. He indicates that the type of the syntactic construction predetermines the choice of these mood forms. The difference between the mood forms disappears if you do not use the analytical form with would/ should, e.g. If you could talk to my boss about me, it might help. This is a solid proof that these are just syntactically bound forms of one mood [Гуревич 2003: 43-44].

The authors of ‘Cambridge Grammar of English’ (2007) single out three moods: indicative, imperative and subjunctive. The indicative is a factual mood. The imperative and the subjunctive are non-factual moods. Interestingly, the subjunctive is used after verbs indicating wishes, desires, etc. (e.g. used after suggest, insist, demand, etc.), after conditional subordinators (e.g. if, lest, on condition that, whether), after expressions of necessity (e.g. it is important, etc.). The forms of the subjunctive are the base form of the verb and the form were. P. Kroeger calls Subjunctive those forms which occur in statements that the speaker does not hold true. As subjunctive he recognizes such forms as If I were you. God bless you! Long live the King! [Kroeger 2006: 164].

N.A. Kobrina, N.N. Boldyrev and A.A. Khudyakov define the categorial meaning of the Subjunctive mood as that expressing unreality and call it a cluster category which involves the use of a wide range of linguistic forms of different status (verb forms as well as phrases with modal verbs) [Кобрина 2007: 108, 111].

In many grammars of English compiled by English grammarians the Subjunctive is not mentioned at all as all the cases are treated as a range of possible forms fitting different types of sentences, usually called conditional sentences [Alexander 1995: 273-283; Close 58-62; Murphy 1994: 74-80; A Practical English Grammar 1978: 190-192; Swan 1984: 151-153, 303-311]. In line with this is the explanation of some remnant forms giving the sentence an archaic and solemn ring (Be it proclaimed, so be it, suffice it to say, etc.), which the authors of Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English discuss in the chapter, entitled “Word order and related syntactic choices” [Longman Grammar 2000: 918]. Thus what counts for many Russian linguists as a separate mood or even a number of separate moods is looked upon as a syntactically bound use of tense-forms or verb-forms. The following remark gives us some insight into the train of thought of the adherents of this position, “Some European languages have special conditional tenses – forms of the verb that are used primarily or only in conditional sentences. This is not true in English, and some people argue that it is misleading to think of conditional structures as being special” [Parrot 2001: 231].

Thus, the problem of the Subjunctive mood is still under discussion in Modern linguistics. Evidently, the complicated character of this issue is caused by a number of factors:

ü formal variety;

ü semantic variety;

ü the overlap in meaning between verb-forms and modal verbs;

ü a combination of synthetic forms recognized by some linguists as mood forms and analytical forms which are not recognized as such;

ü facts of the historical development of the English language and some remnant forms existing due to this process;

ü the influence of other languages through the prism of which English grammar is sometimes analyzed.

All these factors are the result of the historic development of the verbal system in English. Moreover, grammarians assert that the mood system in English is still in the state of making and change [Блох 1983: 202-203]. No wonder the historic view has its toll on the interpretation of the category of mood. It should be added that the interpretation of this category in English is influenced by other languages as well. Sometimes the principles of linguistic description this or that linguist sticks to lead to the existing controversy: there is a tendency to apply logical, psychological or semantic principles to the analysis of this category. When the role of the grammatical form is underestimated and the domain of pure grammar left, whereas semantics comes into play and acquires the upper hand, grammatical description loses its clear-cut boundaries. There is still another factor contributing to the discrepancy in the interpretation of this category. It may result from different treatment of the notion of an analytical form. Prof. L.S. Barkhudarov warns that a biased approach will always yield a vulnerable scheme [Бархударов 1975: 129-130]. Needless to say, every linguist aims at constructing an unbiased theory, and the remark of the noted grammarian remains wasted. On top of this, the choice of the theoretical background is very often governed by teaching needs and traditional approach within this or that linguistic school.

Ø Recommended literature:

1. Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1975. – С. 129-136.
2. Блох М.Я. Практикум по теоретической грамматике английского языка / М.Я. Блох, Т.Н. Семенова, С.В. Тимофеева. – М.: Высшая школа, 2004. – С. 170-171, 203-204, 212-215.
3. Блох М.Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 2008. – С. 201-219.
4. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1981. – С. 68-75.
5. Ильиш Б.А. Строй современного английского языка. – Л.: Просвещение, 1971. – С. 99-113.
6. Иофик Л.Л., Чахоян Л.П., Поспелова А.Г. Хрестоматия по теоретической грамматике английского языка. – Л.: Изд-во «Просвещение», 1981. – С. 68, 85-87.
7. Кобрина Н.А. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка: Учебное пособие / Н.А. Кобрина, Н.Н. Болдырев, А.А. Худяков. – М.: Высшая школа, 2007. – С. 107-119.

Ø Supplementary literature:

1. Гуревич В.В. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков. – М.: Флинта: Наука, 2003. – С. 41-45.
2. Ильиш Б.А. Современный английский язык. Теоретический курс. – М.: Издательство литературы на иностранных языках, 1948. – С. 180-191.

3. Мурясов Р.З. Типология глагола в разноструктурных языках. – Уфа: РИЦ БашГУ, 2011. – 207-310.

1. Смирницкий А.И.Морфология английского языка. – М.: Изд-во литературы на иностранных языках, 1959. – С. 341-354.
2. Хлебникова И.Б. Основы английской морфологии. – М.: «ЧеРо», 2001. – С. 86-110.
3. Штелинг Д.А. Грамматическая семантика английского языка. Фактор человека в языке. – М.: МГИМО, ЧеРо, 1996. – С. 50-54.

Дата добавления: 2017-01-14