Chapter XI

THE VERB: MOOD

The category of mood in the present English verb has given rise to so many discussions, and has been treated in so many different ways, that it seems hardly possible to arrive at any more or less convincing and universally acceptable conclusion concerning it. Indeed, the only points in the sphere of mood which have not so far been disputed seem to be these: (a) there is a category of mood in Modern English, (b) there are at least two moods in the modern English verb, one of which is the indicative. As to the number of the other moods and as to their meanings and the names they ought to be given, opinions to-day are as far apart as ever. It is to be hoped that the new methods of objective linguistic investigation will do much to improve this state of things. Meanwhile we shall have to try to get at the roots of this divergence of views and to establish at least the starting points of an objective investigation. We shall have to begin with a definition of the category. Various definitions have been given of the category of mood. One of them (by Academician V. Vinogradov) is this: "Mood expresses the relation of the action to reality, as stated by the speaker." ¹ This definition seems plausible on the whole, though the words "relation of the action to reality" may not be clear enough. What is meant here is that different moods express different degrees of reality of an action, viz. one mood represents it as actually taking (or having taken) place, while another represents it as merely conditional or desired, etc.

It should be noted at once that there are other ways of indicating the reality or possibility of an action, besides the verbal category of mood, viz. modal verbs (may, can, must, etc.), and modal words (perhaps, probably, etc.), which do not concern us here. All these phenomena fall under the very wide notion of modality, which is not confined to grammar but includes some parts of lexicology and of phonetics (intonation) as well.

In proceeding now to an analysis of moods in English, let us first state the main division, which has been universally recognised. This is the division of moods into the one which represents an action as real, i. e. as actually taking place (the indicative) as against that or those which represent it as non-real, i. e. as merely imaginary, conditional, etc.

THE INDICATIVE

The use of the indicative mood shows that the speaker represents the action as real.

¹ See В. В. Виноградов, Русский язык, стр. 581. 4*

100 The Verb: Mood

Two additional remarks are necessary here.

(1) The mention of the speaker (or writer) who represents the action as real is most essential. If we limited ourselves to saying that the indicative mood is used to represent real actions, we should arrive at the absurd conclusion that whatever has been stated by anybody (in speech or in writing) in a sentence with its predicate verb in the indicative mood is therefore necessarily true. We should then ignore the possibility of the speaker either being mistaken or else telling a deliberate lie. The point is that grammar (and indeed linguistics as a whole) does not deal with the ultimate truth or untruth of a statement with its predicate verb in the indicative (or, for that matter, in any other) mood. What is essential from the grammatical point of view is the meaning of the category as used by the author of this or that sentence. Besides, what are we to make of statements with their predicate verb in the indicative mood found in works of fiction? In what sense could we say, for instance, that the sentence David Copperfield married Dora or the sentence Soames Forsyte divorced his first wife, Irene represent "real facts", since we are aware that the men and women mentioned in these sentences never existed "in real life"? This is more evident still for such nursery rhyme sentences as, The cow jumped over the moon. This peculiarity of the category of mood should be always firmly kept in mind.

(2) Some doubt about the meaning of the indicative mood may arise if we take into account its use in conditional sentences such as the following: I will speak to him if I meet him.

It may be argued that the action denoted by the verb in the indicative mood (in the subordinate clauses as well as in the main clauses) is not here represented as a fact but merely as a possibility (I may meet him, and I may not, etc.). However, this does not affect the meaning of the grammatical form as such. The conditional meaning is expressed by the conjunction, and of course it does alter the modal meaning of the sentence, but the meaning of the verb form as such remains what it was. As to the predicate verb of the main clause, which expresses the action bound to follow the fulfilment of the condition laid down in the subordinate clause, it is no more uncertain than an action belonging to the future generally is. This brings us to the question of a peculiar modal character of the future indicative, as distinct from the present or past indicative. In the sentence If he was there I did not see him the action of the main clause is stated as certain, in spite of the fact that the subordinate clause is introduced by if and, consequently, its action is hypothetical. The meaning of the main clause cannot be affected by this, apparently because the past has a firmer meaning of reality than the future.

The Imperative 101

On the whole, then, the hypothetical meaning attached to clauses introduced by if is no objection to the meaning of the indicative as a verbal category. ¹

THE IMPERATIVE

The imperative mood in English is represented by one form only, viz. come(!), without any suffix or ending.²

It differs from all other moods in several important points. It has no person, number, tense, or aspect distinctions, and, which is the main thing, it is limited in its use to one type of sentence only, viz. imperative sentences. Most usually a verb in the imperative has no pronoun acting as subject. However, the pronoun may be used in emotional speech, as in the following example: "But, Tessie —" he pleaded, going towards her. "You leave me alone!" she cried out loudly. (E. CALDWELL) These are essential peculiarities distinguishing the imperative, and they have given rise to doubts as to whether the imperative can be numbered among the moods at all. This of course depends on what we mean by mood. If we accept the definition of mood given above (p. 99) there would seem to be no ground to deny that the imperative is a mood. The definition does not say anything about the possibility of using a form belonging to a modal category in one or more types of sentences: that syntactical problem is not a problem of defining mood. If we were to define mood (and, indeed, the other verbal categories) in terms of syntactical use, and to mention the ability of being used in various types of sentences as prerequisite for a category to be acknowledged as mood, things would indeed be different and the imperative would have to go. Such a view is possible but it has not so far been developed by any scholar and until that is convincingly done there appears no ground to exclude the imperative.

A serious difficulty connected with the imperative is the absence of any specific morphological characteristics: with all verbs, including the verb be, it coincides with the infinitive, and in all verbs, except be, it also coincides with the present indicative apart from the 3rd person singular. Even the absence of a subject pronoun you, which would be its syntactical characteristic, is not a reliable feature at all, as sentences like You sit here! occur often enough.

¹ We will consider some other cases of modal shades possible for the indicative later on (see p. 111).

² There seems to be only one case of what might be called the perfect imperative, namely, the form have done (!) of the verb do. It has to a great extent been lexicalised and it now means, 'stop immediately'. The order is, as it were, that the action should already be finished by the time the order is uttered. This is quite an isolated case, and of course there is no perfect imperative in the English verb system as a whole.

102 The Verb: Mood

Meaning alone may not seem sufficient ground for establishing a grammatical category. Thus, no fully convincing solution of the problem has yet been found.

THE OTHER MOODS

Now we come to a very difficult set of problems, namely those connected with the subjunctive, conditional, or whatever other name we may choose to give these moods.

The chief difficulty analysis has to face here is the absence of a straightforward mutual relation between meaning and form. Sometimes the same external series of signs will have two (or more) different meanings depending on factors lying outside the form itself, and outside the meaning of the verb; sometimes, again, the same modal meaning will be expressed by two different series of external signs.

The first of these two points may be illustrated by the sequence we should come, which means one thing in the sentence I think we should come here again to-morrow (here we should come is equivalent to we ought to come); it means another thing in the sentence If we knew that he wants us we should come to see him (here we should come denotes a conditional action, i. e. an action depending on certain conditions), and it means another thing again in the sentence How queer that we should come at the very moment when you were talking about us! (here we should come denotes an action which has actually taken place and which is considered as an object for comment). In a similar way, several meanings may be found in the sequence he would come in different contexts.

The second of the two points may be illustrated by comparing the two sentences, I suggest that he go and I suggest that he should go, and we will for the present neglect the fact that the first of the two variants is more typical of American, and the second of British English.

It is quite clear, then, that we shall arrive at different systems of English moods, according as we make our classification depend on the meaning (in that case one should come will find its place under one heading, and the other should come under another, whereas (he) go and (he) should go will find their place under the same heading) or on form (in that case he should come will fall under one heading, no matter in what context it may be used, while (he) go and (he) should go will fall under different headings).

This difficulty appears to be one of the main sources of that wide divergence of views which strikes every reader of English grammars when he reaches the chapter on moods.

The Other Moods 103

It is natural to suppose that a satisfactory solution may be found by combining the two approaches (that based on meaning and that based on form) in some way or other. But here again we are faced with difficulties when we try to determine the exact way in which they should be combined. Shall we start with criteria based on meaning and first establish the main categories on this principle, and then subdivide each of these categories according to formal criteria, and in this way arrive at the final smallest units in the sphere of mood? Or shall we proceed in the opposite way and start with formal divisions, etc.? All these are questions which can only be answered in a more or less arbitrary way, so that a really binding solution cannot be expected on these lines. Whatever system of moods we may happen to arrive at, it will always be possible for somebody else to say that a different solution is also conceivable and perhaps better than the one we have proposed. ¹

Matters are still further complicated by two phenomena where we are faced with a choice between polysemy and homonymy. One of these concerns forms like lived, knew, etc. Such forms appear in two types of contexts, of which one may be exemplified by the sentences, He lived here five years ago, or I knew it all along, and the other by the sentences, If he lived here he would come at once, от, If I knew his address I should write to him.

In sentences of the first type the form obviously is the past tense of the indicative mood. The second type admits of two interpretations: either the forms lived, knew, etc. are the same forms of the past indicative that were used in the first type, but they have acquired another meaning in this particular context, or else the forms lived, knew, etc. are forms of some other mood, which only happen to be homonymous with forms of the past indicative but are basically different. ²

The other question concerns forms like (I) should go, (he) would go. These are also used in different contexts, as may be seen from the following sentences: I said I should go at once, I should go if I knew the place, Whom should I meet but him, etc.

The question which arises here is this: is the group (he) would go in both cases the same form, with its meaning changed according to the syntactic context, so that one context favours the temporal meaning ("future-in-the-past") and the other a modal meaning (a mood of some sort, differing from the indicative; we will not go now into details about what mood this should be), or are they

¹ It may be noted here that similar difficulties, though perhaps on a smaller scale, are to be found in analysing moods in Russian. See, for example, В. В. Виноградов, Русский язык, стр. 584 сл.

² In this discussion we treat merely of the present state of things, not of its origins.

104 The Verb: Mood

homonyms, that is, two basically different forms which happen to coincide in sound? ¹

The problem of polysemy or homonymy with reference to such forms as knew, lived, or should come, would come, and the like is a very hard one to solve. It is surely no accident that the solutions proposed for it have been so widely varied.²

Having, then, before us this great accumulation of difficulties and of problems to which contradictory solutions have been proposed without any one author being able to prove his point in such a way that everybody would have to admit his having proved it, we must now approach this question: what way of analysing the category of mood in Modern English shall we choose if we are to achieve objectively valid results, so far as this is at all possible?

There is another peculiar complication in the analysis of mood. The question is, what verbs are auxiliaries of mood in Modern English? The verbs should and would are auxiliaries expressing unreality (whatever system of moods we may adopt after all). But the question is less clear with the verb may when used in such sentences as Come closer that I may hear what you say (and, of course, the form might if the main clause has a predicate verb in a past tense). Is the group may hear some mood form of the verb hear, or is it a free combination of two verbs, thus belonging entirely to the field of syntax, not morphology? The same question may be asked about the verb may in such sentences as May you be happy! where it is part of a group used to express a wish, and is perhaps a mood auxiliary. We ought to seek an objective criterion which would enable us to arrive at a convincing conclusion.

Last of all, a question arises concerning the forms traditionally named the imperative mood, i. e. forms like come in the sentence Come here, please/ or do not be in the sentence Do not be angry with him, please! The usual view that they are mood forms has recently been attacked on the ground that their use in sentences is rather different from that of other mood forms.³

All these considerations, varied as they are, make the problem of mood in Modern English extremely difficult to solve and they seem to show in advance that no universally acceptable solution can be hoped for in a near future. Those proposed so far have been extremely unlike each other. Owing to the difference of approach to moods, grammarians have been vacillating between two extremes — 3 moods (indicative, subjunctive and imperative), put forward by

¹ Here, too, it should be kept in mind that we are dealing merely with the present state of things, not with its historical origins.

² We may note in passing that quite similar difficulties of choice between polysemy and homonymy are met with in the sphere of lexicology (note the discussions on such words as head, hand, board, etc.).

³ See above, p. 101.

The Other Moods 105

106 The Verb: Mood

The Other Moods 107

We will now turn our attention to those problems of polysemy or homonymy which have been stated above.

It would seem that some basic principle should be chosen here before we proceed to consider the facts. Either we shall be ready to accept homonymy easily, rather than admit that a category having a definite meaning can, under certain circumstances, come to be used in a different meaning; or we shall avoid homonymy as far as possible, and only accept it if all other attempts to explain the meaning and use of a category have failed. The choice between these two procedures will probably always remain somewhat arbitrary, and the solution of a problem of this kind is bound to have asubjective element about it.

Let us now assume that we shall avoid homonymy as far as possible and try to keep the unity of a form in its various uses.

The first question to be considered here is that about forms of the type lived and knew. The question is whether these forms, when used in subordinate clauses of unreal condition, are the same forms that are otherwise known as the past indefinite indicative, or whether they are different forms, homonymous with the past indefinite.

If we take the view stated above, the lived and knew forms will be described in the following terms:

They are basically forms of the past tense indicative. This is their own meaning and they actually have this meaning unless some specified context shows that the meaning is different. These possible contexts have to be described in precise terms so that no room remains for doubts and ambiguities. They should be represented as grammatical patterns (which may also include some lexical items).

Pattern No. 1 (for the lived or knew forms having a meaning different from the past indicative):

108 The Verb: Mood

We cannot give here a complete list of patterns. However, such a list is necessary if the conditions of a peculiar application of the lived or knew forms are to be" made clear.

We might also take the view that wherever a difference in meaning is found we have to deal with homonyms. In that case we should say that there are two homonymous lived forms: lived₁ is the past indicative of the verb live, and lived₂ is its present subjunctive (or whatever we may call it). The same, of course, would apply to knew and to all other forms of this kind. However, this would not introduce any change into the patterns stated above. We should only have to change the heading, and to say that, for example, Pattern No. 1 shows the conditions under which lived or knew is the form of the present subjunctive. It becomes evident here that the difference between the two views affect the interpretation of grammatical phenomena, rather than the phenomena themselves.

A similar problem concerns the groups "should + infinitive" and "would + infinitive". Two views are possible here. If we have decided to avoid homonymy as far as possible, we will say that a group of this type is basically a tense (the future-in-the-past), which under certain specified conditions may express an unreal action — the consequence of an unfulfilled condition. ¹

¹ With these groups the problem is further complicated by the fact that both "should + infinitive" and "would + infinitive" have other meanings, besides the temporal and the modal ones, "Should + infinitive" can, as is well known, denote obligation and thus be synonymous with "ought + to- infinitive", whereas "would + infinitive" can also denote repetition of the action (as in the sentence He would come and sit with us for hours) and volition (as in the sentence Try as I might, he would not agree to my proposal). The exact delimitation of all these possibilities is a somewhat arduous task. A complete theory of the matter would require a complete list of patterns for every possible meaning of each group.

Here is an extract from a novel by Jane Austen which is interesting from this viewpoint: Thorpe defended himself very stoutly, declared he had never seen two men so much alike in his life, and would hardly give up the point of its having been Tilney himself. Since there is, in this sentence, a verb denoting speech in the past tense (declared) and an object clause attached to it, with its predicate verb in the past perfect tense (had never seen), it would be all but natural to suppose that would... give up is a future-in-the-past and a second predicate in the object clause whose first predicate is had... seen. It is only the lexical meanings of the words (hardly, give up) that show this interpretation to be a mistake: in reality the predicate would hardly give up is a third predicate in the main clause, whose first two predicates are defended and declared. From this it becomes evident that would hardly give up is a compound predicate, meaning, approximately, 'did not want to give up...' To illustrate further the importance of the lexical meanings, let us substitute other words for the ones in the text, leaving the pattern "would + infinitive" untouched; for instance, Thorpe defended himself very stoutly, declared he had never seen two men so much alike in his life, and would never believe it was another man. In that case the "would + infinitive" might quite well be the future-in-the-past.

As a third pattern, it would be necessary to give the sentence, in which there is no subordinate clause, e. g. I should be very glad to see him. Here, however, the distinction between the temporal and the modal meaning is a matter of extreme subtlety and no doubt many lexical peculiarities would have to be taken into account. Especially in the so-called represented speech (see p. 333) the conditions for the one and the other meaning to be realised are very intricate, as will be seen from the following extract: To the end of her life she would remember again the taste of the fried egg sandwich on her tongue, could bite again into the stored coolness of the apple she picked up from the red heap on a trestle table....She would never again see the country round Laurence Vernon's home as she saw it the first time with Roy. (R. WEST) A variety of factors, both grammatical and lexical, go to show that the meaning here is that of the future-in-the-past. Compare: But Isabelle could do nothing, she and Marc had been brought by the Bourges, who were now murmuring frenetically, that they would feel better at the Sporting Club (Idem), where it is hard to tell which meaning is preferable.

If we endorse the other view, that is, if we take the temporal and the modal groups "should (would) + infinitive" to be homonyms the patterns themselves will not change. The change will affect the headings. We shall have to say, in that case, that the patterns serve to distinguish between two basically different forms sounding alike. Again, just as in the case of lived and knew, this will be a matter of interpreting facts, rather than of the facts as such.

GROUPS WHICH OUGHT NOT TO BE CLASSED UNDER MODAL CATEGORIES

Among these we must mention first the groups let me go, let us go, and let him (them) go, i. e. the patterns "let + personal pronoun (in the objective case) or noun (in the common case) + infinitive' which may be used to denote (1) a decision of the 1st person sin-

110 The Verb: Mood

gular (i. e. of the speaker himself) to commit an action, or (2) an appeal to the 1st person plural, that is to one or more interlocutors to commit an action together with the speaker, or (3) an appeal to the 3rd person (singular or plural) to commit some action.

There is the question whether groups of this structure can or cannot be recognised as analytical forms of the imperative. This question must be answered in the negative for the following reasons. The noun or pronoun following the verb let stands in an object relation to this verb. This is especially clear with personal pronouns, which are bound to appear in the objective case form: Let me go (not I), let him go (not he), etc. If we were to say that the formation "let + personal pronoun + infinitive" is a form of the imperative, we should have to accept the conclusion that the subject is expressed by a pronoun in the objective case (the nominative being impossible here), which is obviously unacceptable, as it would run counter to all the principles of English syntactic structure. This formation is therefore not an analytical form of the imperative mood, and the verb let not an auxiliary of that mood (or, indeed, of any other grammatical category). Expressions of the type let me go, let us go, let him go are therefore not in any way morphological phenomena. They belong to syntax. The imperative mood is represented by 2nd person forms only.

It might be argued that, since there are no other persons within the system of the imperative, the 2nd person is not opposed to any other person and does not therefore exist as a grammatical category. If we take this view we should have to say that there is no category of person at all in the imperative. This view is quite defensible, provided we take the system of the imperative as something existing in its own right and not within the wider framework of the verb system as a whole. If, on the other hand, we do place it in this wider framework we shall recognise that the form come (!) bears the same reference to person as the form (you) come (!) and we shall not deny it the right to be called a 2nd person form. Here, indeed, the decision arrived at will depend on the view we take of the problem on a wider scale.

MOOD AND TENSE

We have already discussed some relations between mood and tense in dealing with such forms as lived, knew, and such forms as should come, would come.

There are, however, some other problems in this field, which we have not so far touched upon.

First of all, there is the use of the future tense to denote an action referring to the present and considered as probable (not

Mood and Tense 111

certain). We can illustrate this use by examples of the following kind: The House will know that... (used, for example, in parliament speeches).

The sources of this use seem clear enough. The original meaning of such sentences seems to have been, approximately, this: 'It will appear (afterwards) that you know', etc.

In a similar way the future perfect can be used to denote an action which is thought of as finished by the time of speaking and represented as probable. This is seen in such sentences as the following: ...You'll not have spoken to her mother yet? (LINKLATER), which is equivalent to Probably you have not spoken to her mother yet? The origin of this use is analogous to that of the future as shown above. The sentence just quoted would have meant, 'It will appear (afterwards) that you have not spoken', etc. In the following example the future-in-the-past and the future-perfect-in-the-past are used in this way: I made for my lodgings where by now Melissa would be awake, and would have set out our evening meal on the newspaper-covered table. (DURRELL) It is the adverbial modifier by now which makes the meaning perfectly clear.

In this way both the future and the future perfect can acquire a peculiar modal colouring. As in some previous cases, we ought to look for certain patterns, including, probably, lexical as well as grammatical items, in which this modal colouring is found. ¹

An interdependence between mood and tense which has a much wider meaning may be found if we analyse the system of tenses together with that of moods. When the question arises, how many tenses there are in the Modern English verb and what these tenses are, examples for that kind of analysis are always taken from the indicative mood. ² Indeed, it is only in this mood that we find the system of tenses fully developed. In no other mood, however we may classify those other moods, shall we find the same system of tenses as in the indicative. The cause of this is evident enough: it is the indicative mood which is used to represent real actions, and it is such actions that are described by exact temporal characteristics. As to those actions which do not take place in reality but are thought of as possible, desirable, etc., they would not require a detailed time characteristic. Time is essentially objective, while all moods except the indicative are subjective.

¹ A similar phenomenon is found in Russian, as when a verb in the future form (chiefly the verb быть) is used to denote something referring to the present, with a peculiar modal colouring, e.g. До меня верст пять будет (ТУРГЕНЕВ), А кто ж такая будете? (Idem) See В. В. Виноградов, Русский язык, стр. 575.

² This is of course also true of Russian grammar: the analysis of the three tenses of the Russian verb is always based on material provided by the indicative mood.

112 The Verb: Mood

Things are quite clear in the sphere of the imperative. Since its basic meaning is an appeal to the listener to perform an action it is obviously incompatible with the past tense. A difference might exist between present and future, in the sense that the speaker might appeal to the listener to perform the action either immediately or at some future time. However, no such difference is found in the imperative forms either in English or in most other languages. ¹

As to the moods expressing condition, desire, and the like, the problem of tense is somewhat more complicated. If we compare the two well-known types of conditional clauses:

(1) If he knew this, he would come,

(2) If he had known this, he would have come,

we are faced with a complexity of interwoven problems. Evidently our interpretation of these phenomena will depend on our treatment of the forms knew, would come, had known, and would have come (see above).

If we take the view that knew is the past indicative which in this context is used to express an unreal action in the present, and would come the future-in-the-past, which in this context is used to express an unreal consequence in the present, there is nothing more to be said about the tense or any other category appearing in this type of sentence.

In a similar way, if we take the view that had known is the past perfect indicative which in this context is used to express an unreal condition in the past, and would have come the future-perfect-in-the-past which in this context is used to express an unreal consequence in the past, there is nothing more to be said about it.

If, on the other hand, we interpret the forms knew, had known, would come, and would have come as special mood forms, we shall have to characterise the difference between knew and had known and that between would come and would have come in another way. We shall have to find an answer to the question, what grammatical category underlies the oppositions:

knew — had known

would come — would have come.

Here we are faced with a peculiar difficulty. If we judge by the means of expression (the auxiliary have is used in the second

¹ The Latin language does distinguish between a present imperative, e.g. dic 'say!' (now), and a future imperative, e.g. dicito! 'say!' (afterwards). But this distinction is rarely made use of.

Mood and Tense 113

column, but not in the first) we shall compare this opposition to

that between

knows — has known

will know — will have known,

and reach the conclusion that the opposition is based on the category of correlation, as defined above. In that case there would not be any tense category at all in the system of these moods.

But it might also be argued that, according to meaning, the opposition is one of tense (present vs. past). In that case there would be the category of tense in these moods but no correlation.

The choice between these two views remains arbitrary. For the sake of the unity of the system it would seem preferable to stick to the view that wherever we find the pattern "have + second participle" it is the category of correlation that finds its expression in that way.

To sum up the whole discussion about the categories of the verb found in conditional sentences, the simplest view, and the one to be preferred is that we have here forms of the indicative mood in a special use. Another view is that we have here forms of special moods, and that they are distinguished from each other according to the category of correlation.

If we endorse the view that there are no homonymous forms in the English verb a sentence like if he knew this he would come will be interpreted as containing the past tense of the verb know and the future-in-the-past of the verb come, the very existence of mood as a special grammatical category in Modern English becomes doubtful, since it will appear lacking any specific means of expression. This might be the way to "cut the Gordian knot" of problems posed by the analysis of modal meanings in the verb.

This ends our discussion of aspect, tense, correlation, and mood.

Поиск по сайту: