Subjunctive

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I'm starting this thread upon Fivejedjon's request. The problem to be discussed is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not when it's used in a construction like "Should you change your mind, let me know". To decide whether A belongs to class B, we need: 1)To describe the characteristics of class B; 2) To prove that A has or doesn't have those characteristics. Since Fivejedjon initiated this discussion, I think, it would be fair to let him/her be the first to speak. You are welcome, Dr.Fivejedjon.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Since Fivejedjon initiated this discussion, I think, it would be fair to let him/her be the first to speak. You are welcome, Dr.Fivejedjon.
I will happily join this discussion. However, it is now past my bedtime, so I waive any right you have given me to start the ball rolling, but thank you. I'll join you tomorrow.

p.s.
1. I'm a he/him
2.I don't generally mention/question the academic qualifications of others, or use my own, in friendly discussions of this nature.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
To decide whether A belongs to class B, we need [...] To describe the characteristics of class B;

I thought I'd start us off with a definition or two from a third party. They appear to have ended the discussion before it starts:

SUBJUNCTIVE [...] A grammatical category that contrasts paricularly with the indicative in the mood system of verbs in various languages, and expresses certainty or non-factuality.
Sylvia Chalker in McArthur, Tom (Editor), (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language, Oxford: OUP.

Chalker goes on to say (of the mandative subjunctive): [...] especially in BrE, it can be replaced by a should-construction.

Chalker's use of replaced by suggests to me that she does not consider a should-construction to be a subjunctive form.

Chalker says (of the conditional and concessive subjunctive): The alternatives are an indicative or a should-phrase. Alternatives

MODAL VERB [...] A verb [...] such as must and should [...] In English such verbs have largely replaced the subjunctive mood. Greenbaum, Sidney and Palmer, Frank R in McArthur (1992). Replaced

Quod erat demonstrandum.
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Thank you, Mr.Fivejedjon. All you have convinced us of is that a few authors, Chalker, Greenbaum et al., share your opinion. But that doesn't throw much light on the problem as such.

1. The definition of the Subjunctive Mood you quote says it 'expresses certainty'. i.e. by using this grammatical category we can vary the degree of certainty. But this is exactly what 'should' is doing in the construction being considered.

Cf.: Should you change your mind, let me know.
If you change your mind, let me know.

It is quite obvious that due to 'should' the sentence acquires the meaning "the speaker views the future situation as possible though unlikely". In other words, 'should' affects the degree of certainty. Basing on the definition you refer to, 'should' is a subjunctive form.

2. I think it would help us a lot if you were to clarify how you understand the relationship between:
a) unreality and the subjunctive mood;
b) modality and mood


I would also like to invite the other party to this argument, Corum, to take part in the discussion.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
One at a time:
1. The definition of the Subjunctive Mood you quote says it 'expresses certainty'. i.e. by using this grammatical category we can vary the degree of certainty. But this is exactly what 'should' is doing in the construction being considered. I agree.

Cf.: Should you change your mind, let me know.
If you change your mind, let me know.

It is quite obvious that due to 'should' the sentence acquires the meaning "the speaker views the future situation as possible though unlikely". I agree. In other words, 'should' affects the degree of certainty. I agree. Basing on the definition you refer to, 'should' is a subjunctive form. I do not agree.
"SUBJUNCTIVE [...] A grammatical category that contrasts paricularly with the indicative in the mood system of verbs in various languages, and expresses certainty or non-factuality." Chalker.

For me, the subjunctive is found within the verb itself: If that be so, if I were you. As I have mentioned in other threads, recognisable subjunctive forms are so rare in modern English that I doubt the value of teaching the subjunctive at all. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I will accept that there is a subjunctive mood in English, and that my italicised forms be and were are subjunctive forms.

There are (at least) three ways in English of indicating degree of certainty. They are, not in order of importance:

1. Adverbs such as possibly, perhaps.
2. The subjunctive
3. Modals.

That Modals and the subjunctive mood may do the same job does not mean one is the other.
All you have convinced us of is that a few authors, [...], share your opinion
I quote other authors, not to prove my point but to show that I am not alone in my views. Also, these authors make the point more succinctly than I can. (You may have noticed that I tend to become a little verbose). For that second reason, I will now quote Greenbaum:

MODALITY [...]In syntactic and semantic analysis, a term chiefly used to refer to the way in which the meaning of a sentence or clause may be modified through the use of a modal auxiliary [...]. The term is also extended to include the subjunctive mood and the past verb forms used to express hypothetical meaning.

So, I accept both the subjunctive and some should-constructions as expressions of modality, but I do not accept that should is a subjunctive form.
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
I'm starting this thread upon Fivejedjon's request. The problem to be discussed is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not when it's used in a construction like "Should you change your mind, let me know". To decide whether A belongs to class B, we need: 1)To describe the characteristics of class B; 2) To prove that A has or doesn't have those characteristics. Since Fivejedjon initiated this discussion, I think, it would be fair to let him/her be the first to speak. You are welcome, Dr.Fivejedjon.

This is the impression that an amateur (corum) managed to gain from his English self-studies, using books and the Internet plus the experience he gained in one year that he spent in an English speaking country.

To me, subjunctive is a type of mood, a purely morphological category, a set of inflected verb forms used to denote, express, certain types of modality. Modality, a purely semantic category, is the taxonomic system of propositions created on the basis of whether they express possibility, contingency, necessity and many more things. As far as I know, the concepts that I directly named (possibility, contingency, necessity) are those -- no more, no less -- for which we use the subjunctive conjugational system of verb phrases.
Now let us examine this sentence:

Should you change your mind, let me know.

The concept of contingency comes up in my mind. Why? In the first clause, in the subordinate clause, or if you so like, in the protasis, is expressed the condition upon which the fulfillment of letting someone know hinges. In other words, the act of "letting me know" is contingent upon one condition: you change your mind. You will either change your mind or not. The speaker does not know. As contingency is expressed, resort can/should be made to the subjunctive inflectional system. What is the verb (phrase) in the protasis? It is "should change". "Should" is a modal auxiliary verb. In this sentence, its auxiliary function unfolds in its putative meaning.

The meaning of the protasis determines its mood. The type of mood determines whether resort can/should be made to the subjunctive inflectional system. Since 'should' is used putatively: subjunctive! In a complex verb phrase, it is always the operator whose form may change. In present subjunctive, the unmarked base form of the modal is called for.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
To me, subjunctive is a type of mood, a purely morphological category, a set of inflected verb forms used to denote, express, certain types of modality. So far, reasonable enough.

[...] Since 'should' is used putatively: subjunctive! An enormous leap.
Does this mean that verbs in a clause containing 'possibly/perhaps/reportedly/etc' are subjunctive?

In a complex verb phrase, it is always the operator whose form may change. In present subjunctive, the unmarked base form of the modal is called for. If it's unmarked, then it can hardly be subjunctive-marked. Besides, there are many who would say that should is the marked form of shall
I will be surprised if he changes his mind.

According to your line of reasoning, changes is subjunctive. But it isn't.
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Thank you, gentlemen. As far as I understand, both of you agree that 'should' expresses here epistemic modality. Would you please answer the following question: Do you believe that modality can be expressed both grammatically and lexically or only grammatically? By the way, according to protocol, forum members following the discussion are welcome to ask questions to the opponents.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Do you believe that modality can be expressed both grammatically and lexically or only grammatically?
In a wider sense of the word modality, yes. However, the original question was The problem to be discussed is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not when it's used in a construction like "Should you change your mind, let me know". I fear that we may get sidetracked into a discusssion on modality. This might not be totally irrelevant, but I hope we can all stick closely to discussing the original question.
I'll take a break now until others have had a chance to catch up. Back tomorrow.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
The problem to be discussed is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not when it's used in a construction like "Should you change your mind, let me know".

In form, no, but in meaning, why not?


Jespersen O (1905). Growth and structure of the English language (Leipzig: B.G. Tuebner).
Section 206, page 205:


While the number of tenses has been increased, the number of moods has tended to diminish, the subjunctive having now very little vital power left. Most of its forms have become indistinguishable from those of the indicative, but the loss is not a serious one, for the thought is just as clearly expressed in “if he died”, where died may be either indicative or subjunctive, as in “if he were dead”, where the verb has a distinctly subjunctive form.​
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
The problem to be discussed is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not..
In form, no, but in meaning, why not?
In form, no. That's clear enough.
If the only element of 'subjunctiveness' is in its meaning, then we are far better off with terms such as hypothetical, counterfactual, etc. which actually convey a meaning.
Subjunctive itself only 'means' "that is subjoined" (OED).
Webster's 3rd is, as usual, more prolix: "of, relating to, or constituting a verb form or set of forms that represent an attitude toward or concern with a denoted act or state not as a fact but as something entertained in thought as contingent or possiible or viewed emotionally (as with doubt, desire, will)".

In form, should is not subjunctive. That is what I have maintained from the beginning.
In meaning, should is no more subjunctive than doubt or perhaps.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
So far the only argument in favour of should being regarded as a subjunctive form has been along the lines of, “A should-construction has the same meaning as a verb in the subjunctive mood. Therefore should is a subjunctive form.” The flaws in this line of argument should (!) not need to be pointed out, though I have indicated a couple.

Pokemon is not impressed that, “a few authors, Chalker, Greenbaum et al., share your opinion”. Those I chose do know something about English Grammar*. If it were not so tedious, I would produce the opinions of almost every authority on English grammar of the 20th century who share my opinion. The backing of such authorities does not prove my case, but saves me the bother of repeating at length here what they have written

I think the onus is now on those who believe that should is a conditional form to demonstrate convincingly that it is. Cited support from professional linguists would be helpful.


*
Sidney Greenbaum: Quain Professor of English Language and Literature, University College London 1983-90, Director of the Survey of English Usage, 1983-96, Co-author of A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language; The Oxford English Grammar.

Frank R Palmer: Professor of Linguistic Science, University of Reading 1965-1984., Author of Grammar, Mood and Modality, A Linguistic Study of the English Verb, Grammar and Meaning.

Sylvia Chalker: Researcher at the Survey of English Usage, University College London. Author of Current English Grammar, Co-author of the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, Contributor to the Oxford Companion to the English Language.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
[The issue under discussion] is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not.
My contribution (be it ever so succinct) is that 'should' is not a subjunctive (in) form, and is misleading as such in constructs that appear to express a condition contrary to fact:


Second Conditional

  • If she were to change her mind, then...
    • Were she to change her mind
      • Meaning: she hasn't changed her mind, and she won't.


should-Conditional <for lack of a better term>

  • If she should change her mind, then...
    • Should she change her mind
      • Meaning: she hasn't changed her mind, but she might!

See Conditional Sentences--Alternate Forms
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
My contribution (be it ever so succinct) is that 'should' is not a subjunctive (in) form, and is misleading as such in constructs that appear to express a condition contrary to fact:
Second Conditional

  • If she were to change her mind, then...
    • Were she to change her mind
      • Meaning: she hasn't changed her mind, and she won't.
I feel that this utterance still allows the possibilty, however remote, that she might change her mind.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
Pokemon is not impressed that, “a few authors, Chalker, Greenbaum et al., share your opinion”.
In all fairness, I felt the same as Pokemon had. It wasn't the authorities cited that failed to sway my opinion, as I share the same opinion, but rather the way in which their ideas were presented that had me somewhat lost, and in need of clarification (especially where you interpreted Chalker's words on the mandative subjunctive).

I want to know what people think, but more importantly why they think it so that I can make an informed decision, on my own.


I think the onus is now on those who believe that should is a conditional form to demonstrate convincingly that it is. Cited support from professional linguists would be helpful.
For most people, even the authorities, a simple explanation presented clearly would suffice.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
I feel that this utterance still allows the possibilty, however remote, that she might change her mind.
Agreed that is 'allows for possibility', but one that remains unreal, as is the condition. Conversely, in our should-conditional, the possibility is real (but rather remote): she might change her mind (cf. in case she changes her mind).
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
For most people, even the authorities, a simple explanation presented clearly would suffice.
In discussion of this nature, when the idea presented is contrary to what is generally accepted*, then I would have thought that a pretty solid argument, preferably referenced, would be expected.
However, I can live with a simple explanation, if it's logical.

*And the italicised words are not just my opinion. I could back them up if required.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
In discussion of this nature, when the idea presented is contrary to what is generally accepted*, then I would have thought that a pretty solid argument, preferably referenced, would be expected.
Referenced, yes, but solid and logical, it wasn't (at least not to me). :oops:

*And the italicised words are not just my opinion. I could back them up if required.
I'm still working on trying to understand why you would use italics to do that (wouldn't using italics confuse the reader, especially if the reader didn't know what the italics were meant to represent?)
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
I will be surprised if he changes his mind.

According to your line of reasoning, changes is subjunctive. But it isn't.

Hello,

Does this mean that verbs in a clause containing 'possibly/perhaps/reportedly/etc' are subjunctive?

I have not frequently asked myself this question. Let me think. No, it does not mean that. Even at times when these adverbials are missing but the epistemic sense is there, as in

If I was you, I would.,

no subjunctive form is used.

Subjunctive depends on the type of construction at work, on the degree of formality, and on whether standard or non-standard, on whether old English or modern English, on whether AmE or BrE, is used.

On the other hand, morphological changes are rarely obvious to the naked eye.
When 'should' is used in these senses,

Definition of should modal verb (POSSIBILITY) from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus ,

and someone asks me, I say "yes, subjunctive". No change in form, though.

According to your line of reasoning, changes is subjunctive. But it isn't.

No subjunctive. Indicative. Why? Epistemic adverbials do the job. Modality is not always conveyed by verbs. Probably that is why no subjunctive verb form is needed. An epistemic adverbial and an indicative verb form will suffice. No?


As far as I understand, both of you agree that 'should' expresses here epistemic modality.

Me, yes.

Do you believe that modality can be expressed both grammatically and lexically or only grammatically?

Modality is related to meaning and with the meaning goes often hand-in-hand the change in form of verbs. That is what I think.
 
Last edited:

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
The problem to be discussed is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not..
In form, no. That's clear enough.

Zero inflection (unchanged form) necessarily means that no resort has been made to the subjunctive conjugational system?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top