The Category of Mood

A great divergence of opinions on the category of mood is caused by the fact

that identical mood forms can express different meanings and different forms can

express similar meanings.

The category of mood expresses the relation of nominative content of the

sentence towards reality. Hence there are two moods – one presenting the action as

real and the other presenting the action as unreal. Real actions are expressed by the

indicative mood and unreal are expressed by the oblique mood.

I go to university. vs. He suggests I (should) go to university.

I am a student again. vs. I wish I were a student again.

As for the imperative mood, traditionally it has been referred to as a separate

mood. However, Prof. Blokh thinks that the imperative is a variety of the

subjunctive. This can be shown by means of equivalent transformations:

Be off! _ I demand that you (should) be off.

Do be careful with the papers. _ My request is that you (should) be careful with the papers.

Do as I ask you! _ I insist that you (should) do as I ask you.

As it can be seen, the meaning of the imperative does not much differ from

the meaning of the subjunctive. It expresses a directive which may or may not be

translated into a fact. Thus if we agree with M. Blokh, we shall have only two

moods – the indicative and the non-indicative, or spective.

Speaking of the system of oblique moods, linguists distinguish various

semantic varieties: Subjunctive I, Subjunctive II, Conditional, Suppositional.

Subjunctive I So be it. Long live the Queen.

Subjunctive II If I had / had had time

Conditional I would go / would have gone there

Suppositional I demand that he should be present

These moods are distinguished on the basis of meaning which is coloured by

the linguistic environment of the forms, i.e. these are ‘modal’ varieties of the

subjunctive mood.

Subjunctive II and Conditional are used in a conditional period. They have

two forms – either homonymous to Past Indefinite and Future-in-the-Past, or to

Past Perfect and Future-Perfect-in-the-Past.

Prof. Khlebnikova analyzed the morphological system of the English verb

on the basis of oppositions. She paid proper attention to the fact that all these forms

are united by one meaning – that of unreality. Since the meaning is one, but forms

are different, she made the conclusion that there is only one oblique mood

presented by two subtypes.

Subjunctive II and Conditional are more important than the other two

because they are indispensable and sufficient in the system, that is, one cannot do

without them, but can easily do without the other two. Subjunctive II and

Conditional express the same meaning and don’t exist independently, so they can

be united into one mood. Prof. Khlebnikova called this mood Conjunctive.

Subjunctive I and Suppositional are on the periphery of the system. The

former is a remnant of history. It has fallen out of the system and is used in

restricted contexts, such as religious hymns, slogans, etc. The latter is a new

formation that has not entered into the system yet. It is used in specific syntactic

structures, eg., after verbs ‘demand’, ‘suggest’, etc. Another indication that

Subjunctive I and Suppositional are on the periphery of the system is that they are

synonymous and interchangeable in the structure.

To sum up, the category of mood is represented by two oppositions: the

indicative mood and the spective mood. The indicative mood is the basic mood of

the verb. Morphologically it is the most developed system. Semantically, it is a fact

mood; it is the least subjective of all the moods. The spective mood, which

includes the traditional imperative and the subjunctive mood, represents a process

as a non-fact, i.e. as something imaginary, desirable, problematic, contrary to

reality. The imperative variety of the spective mood is morphologically the least

developed mood: it is only expressed by the bare infinitive form.

Mood and Modality

A distinction should be made between grammatical mood and semantic

modality. Mood is a matter of grammatical form, modality a matter of meaning.

The main markers of modality in English are the modal auxiliaries can, may, must,will, shall, together with a few less central ones.

When considering modality it is useful to distinguish between two parts:

the dictum: what is said

the modus: how it is said (that is, the speaker's cognitive, emotive, and/or

volitive attitude about what is said)

For example, a sentence could have the following dictum: It is hot outside.

This dictum could be paired with various of modi, such as the following:

I hope that it is hot outside.

I doubt that it is hot outside.

It must be hot outside.

It has to be hot outside.

It might be hot outside.

It could be hot outside.

It needn't be hot outside.

It shouldn't be hot outside.

It is probably hot outside.

Perhaps it is hot outside.

It is possible that it is hot outside.

It is certain that it is hot outside.

It is probable that it is hot outside.

It is likely that it is hot outside.

Three main kinds of modal meaning are distinguished:

- deontic,

- epistemic,

- dynamic.

Deontic modality is concerned with “influencing actions, states, or events”

and typically has to do with such notions as obligation and permission, or – in

combination with negation – prohibition. Deontic modal meaning also deals with

threats, promises (commissive deontic modality), requests, commands, instructions

(directive), desires, wishes and fears (volitive):

e.g. You must come in immediately (obligation).

You can have one more turn. (permission)

You can’t have any more. (prohibition)

May he lose the race. (wish)

Epistemic modality is concerned with the speaker’s judgement of the truth

of the proposition embedded in the statement.

e.g. It was a mistake represents an unqualified assertion.

It must have been a mistake suggests that I am drawing a conclusion from

evidence rather than asserting something of whose truth I have direct knowledge.

You may be right merely acknowledges the possibility that “You are right” is

true.

Dynamic modality has nothing to do with the speaker, it is subject-oriented

and generally concerns the properties and dispositions of persons, etc., referred to

in the clause.

e.g. Liz can drive better than you. I asked Ed to go but he won’t.

In these examples the speaker is concerned with Liz’s driving ability and

Ed’s willingness to go.

All three kinds of modality are commonly expressed by other means than by

modal auxiliaries: lexical verbs (You are obliged to do that), adjectives (You are likely to be fined), adverbs (Perhaps you are right), nouns (You have my permission to leave early).

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 1887