Identification of the Present Subjunctive with a Modal...
26
Identification of the Present Subjunctive with a Modal Verb
Transcript of Identification of the Present Subjunctive with a Modal...
Identification of the Present Subjunctive with a Modal Verb
Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. The Classification of Modal Verbs .................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Previous Studies and Their Problems ........................................................................................................ 2
2.2. A New Classification ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.3. The Definitions of Subjectivity and Objectivity, and Domains ................................................................. 3
2.4. The Classification of Modal Verbs through Their Epistemic Meanings .................................................... 3
3. The Formality of Modal Verbs .......................................................................................................................... 6
3.1. Modal Verbs and Their Formality .............................................................................................................. 6
3.2. Historical Interpretation ............................................................................................................................. 7
3.3. Purpose Adverbial Clauses ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.4. Other Expressions Concerned with Formality ........................................................................................... 9
3.5. The Difference of Usage between Should and May ................................................................................. 10
4. A Null Modal Verb ...........................................................................................................................................11
4.1. The Present Subjunctive and Should ........................................................................................................11
4.1.1. Expressions Mainly Requiring the Present Subjunctive .................................................................. 11
4.1.2. The Transition from Should to the Present Subjunctive .................................................................. 11
4.2. Previous Studies....................................................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1. Kjellmer (2009), Övergaard (1995) ................................................................................................. 13
4.2.2. Radford (2009) ................................................................................................................................. 14
4.2.3. Their Problems ................................................................................................................................. 14
4.3. The Present Subjunctive and a Null Modal Verb ..................................................................................... 16
4.3.1. The Present Subjunctive and Its Epistemic and Root Meanings...................................................... 16
4.3.2. The Epistemic Present Subjunctive and Its Formality ..................................................................... 16
4.3.3. The Bare Infinitive, the Imperative, the Present Subjunctive, and Modal Verbs ............................ 17
4.3.4. The Base-formalization of the Verb ................................................................................................ 17
4.3.5. The Transition from Should to a Null Modal Verb .......................................................................... 19
4.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 20
5. After the Discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 22
References ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
-1-
1. Introduction
In Present-day English the present subjunctive is used mainly in mandative that-clauses. In them should is
sometimes used instead of the present subjunctive. It is said in general that the present subjunctive is a
characteristic of AmE, and should is of BrE. According to Övergaard (1995), however, before the turn of the 20th
century, should was predominant even in AmE. In Present-day AmE the present subjunctive has overwhelmed
should; in Contemporary BrE the present subjunctive is used more frequently than should.[1]
The mood and the conjugation of the verb are closely related to each other.[2] In Old English the indicative
and the subjunctive were distinguished to some extent by the conjugation of the verb.
(1) The Conjugation of Dēman (a Weak Verb / a Regular Verb)
indic. present sing. first-p. dēme past sing. first-p. dēmde
second-p. dēm(e)st second-p. dēmdest
third-p. dēm(e)þ third-p. dēmde
pl. dēmaþ pl. dēmdon
subj. present sing. dēme past sing. dēmde
pl. dēmen pl. dēmden
(Created based upon Ukaji, 2005: 208-9)
English has been simplifying its verbal conjugative system, which has made the conjugation of the subjunctive
almost the same as that of the indicative. Therefore it is possible to say that the subjunctive is on the verge of
morphological extinction.
The simplification of the English verbal conjugative system declined the power of the subjunctive, and that
led to the subjunctive being replaced by modal verbs and the indicative (Usami, 1992: 161-4). In other words,
English has a long-term trend of modal verbs and the indicative having replaced the subjunctive. In mandative
that-clauses in Present-day English, however, the present subjunctive has taken the place of the modal verb should,
which is the reverse of the general trend that English has.
To analyze this phenomenon, this thesis will employ modal verbs. Base verbs in mandative that-clauses are
generally considered to be present subjunctive, but it is not the only interpretation because base verbs are used in
various grammatical constructions. This thesis will consider base verbs in mandative that-clauses to be verbs after
an invisible modal verb, which Radford (2009: 107-9) calls a null modal. Since the subjunctive and modal verbs
are closely related to each other, no discussion can be held about the subjunctive without modal verbs.
In this thesis I will try first to make a simple classification on modal verbs in Chapter 2. Next, in Chapter 3, I
will prove that verbs considered to be present subjunctive in Present-day English can be interpreted as verbs after
an invisible modal verb. Finally, in Chapter 4, I will try to solve the contradiction between the historical English
trend of modal verbs having replaced the subjunctive and the fact that the present subjunctive has taken the place
of should in mandative that-clauses.
[1] The transition from should to the present subjunctive in BrE may well have been influenced by AmE.
[2] Conjugation is used mainly for the distinction of person, number, gender, tense, mood, etc. In English, except
for the distinction of tense, conjugation hardly functions.
-2-
2. The Classification of Modal Verbs
2.1. Previous Studies and Their Problems
Sawada (1999: 182-191) classifies modal verbs on the basis of their root and epistemic meanings, and he
looks upon root meanings as objective and epistemic ones as subjective.
(2) The Classification of Modal Verbs by Sawada
Objectivity Subjectivity
R E R E
MAY permission possibility
MUST necessity certainty
WILL volition probability
CAN ability possibility possibility
(+Neg, +Q)
SHOULD permission probability
(Sawada, 1999: 190)
[Notes]
• Objective modal verbs are the ones whose present tense form represents the present tense and whose
past tense form the past tense.
• Subjective modal verbs are the ones both of whose present and past tense forms represent the present
tense.
• R signifies root meanings, and E epistemic ones.
• +Neg means being used in negative sentences, and +Q in interrogative sentences.
His classification cannot cope well with epistemic can in that it is classified as both objective and subjective.
When it is not clear whether the meanings of modal verbs are root or epistemic, his classification will not function
well. This means that it is difficult to analyze, through his classification, may and might used in purpose adverbial
clauses (the so that-clause, the in order that-clause, etc.) and should used in mandative that-clauses. Therefore it
seems of little help to classify modal verbs on the basis of their root and epistemic meanings.
2.2. A New Classification
Root and epistemic meanings that modal verbs have are related to each other. Comparing must, should, and
may through their root meanings, the strength of the speaker’s direction to a person or people is ‘must > should >
may’; through their epistemic meanings, the strength of the speaker’s confidence is also ‘must > should > may’.
On the other hand, there exists a wide semantic difference between some modal verbs and others. Here I will
consider the difference on the point of view of root meanings. Will shows volition, would feelings of nostalgia,
and can ability, and these make sense even with only one person (subjective). Must shows mandate, should
obligation, and may permission, and these are inappropriate unless both the giver and the taker exist (objective).
Therefore modal verbs will be classified as follows:
-3-
(3) The Classification of Modal Verbs through Their Root Meanings
[Subjective] will / would | can / could
[Objective] must / should | may / might
2.3. The Definitions of Subjectivity and Objectivity, and Domains
In 2.2 I defined subjectivity and objectivity through root meanings, and here I will redefine them based on
epistemic meanings. I will, moreover, introduce domains to subjectivity and objectivity in order to make analyses
of modal verbs easier.
(4) John may be in his office.
John must be in his office.
John’ll be in his office.
The first indicates that the speaker is uncertain whether John is in his office. With the second, the
speaker makes a firm judgment, on the basis of evidence, e.g. that the office lights are on, that he is not
at home, etc. With the third, the judgment is based on what is generally known about John, e.g. that he
always starts at eight, that he’s a workaholic, etc. (a reasonable conclusion).
(Palmer, 2001: 25)
Must is based upon evidence before the speaker’s eyes, and will upon experience he or she has had before.
Comparing these two modal verbs, will will be a subjective modal verb, and must an objective one. Therefore it is
possible to define subjectivity and objectivity as follows:
(5) (a) Subjectivity
(i) It is based on the speaker’s experience and knowledge.
(ii) There is no evidence before the speaker’s eyes.
→ The imaginary domain
(b) Objectivity
(i) It is not based on the speaker’s experience and knowledge.
(ii) There is evidence before the speaker’s eyes.
→ The actual domain
(a) and (b) must meet a condition of either (i) or (ii), and (i) has precedence over (ii). This is because modal verbs
themselves are subjective, and subjective things such as experience and knowledge may well have precedence
over objective things such as evidence.
2.4. The Classification of Modal Verbs through Their Epistemic Meanings
According to Leech (2004: 82), can represents theoretical possibility, and may factual possibility.
-4-
(6) It can be quite cold here in winter.
(Oxford ‘can’)
(7) That may or may not be true.
(Oxford ‘may’)
Theory belongs to the imaginary domain, and fact to the actual domain. Therefore considering his classification
from the point of view of subjectivity and objectivity, can will be classified as a subjective modal verb, and may
as an objective one.
A similar discussion, Sawada (2006: 221-42) holds. He maintains that can represents scatterness, which
means that a situation is unspecific and does not often occur. An unspecific situation belongs to the imaginary
domain, and can represents inference through the comprehensive consideration of various things in an unspecific
situation. On the other hand, a specific situation belongs to the actual domain, and may represents inference, with
low confidence, to only one thing before the speaker’s eyes in a specific situation.
As is not mentioned by Sawada, will has a similar usage as can: a situation is unspecific but frequently
occurs.
(8) ‘Accidents will happen’, as the saying goes.
(Oxford ‘saying’)
(8) is a maxim based on experience that people have had before, and it belongs to the imaginary domain.
(9) You must be hungry after all that walking.
(Oxford ‘must’)
Must represents inference, with high confidence, to only one thing before the speaker’s eyes in a specific situation.
If scatterness is redefined as the imaginary domain, not only can but also will will represent scatterness. Therefore
can and will need to be classified into the category of subjective modal verbs, and as the counterparts of can and
will, may and must need to be classified into the category of objective modal verbs.
Coates classifies epistemic modal verbs on the basis of their inferential and non-inferential meanings.
(10) The Classification of Epistemic Modal Verbs by Coates
Inferential:
MUST (= from the evidence available I confidently infer that …)
CAN’T (= I’m sure because of a, b, and c that … not …)
SHOULD, OUGHT (= from the evidence available I tentatively assume that …)
SHOULDN’T (= from the evidence available I tentatively assume that … not …)
-5-
Non-Inferential:
WILL (= I confidently predict that …)
WON’T (= I confidently predict that … not …)
MAY, MIGHT, COULD (= I think it is perhaps possible that …)
MAY NOT, MIGHT NOT, COULD NOT[3] (= I think it’s possible that … not …)
(Created based upon Coates, 1983: 19)
Inference and non-inference mean whether there is evidence or not. Since sufficient evidence leads to objectivity,
it is possible to classify must and should as objective modal verbs. She classifies may as different from must and
should because it is used when there is no sufficient evidence. As stated in (5), however, when modal verbs are
classified, whether or not it is based on the speaker’s experience and knowledge has precedence over whether or
not there is evidence. May belongs to the actual domain, and it is not based on the speaker’s experience and
knowledge. Therefore may needs to be classified into the same category as must and should.
Taking into consideration all the discussions held in this section, it is possible to classify modal verbs,
whether they have a root or epistemic meaning, as follows:
(11) The Classification of Modal Verbs
[Subjective] will / would | can / could
[Objective] must / should | may / might
[3] COULD NOT is generally used in the same meaning as CAN’T.
-6-
3. The Formality of Modal Verbs
3.1. Modal Verbs and Their Formality
Formality is how formal a sentence is.
(12) (a) There is a need for more resources so that all children may have a decent education.
(Oxford ‘may’)
(b) There is a need for more resources so that all children can have a decent education.
In (12), (a), in which may is used, is more formal than (b).
There is an idea similar to formality: politeness, which is a speech act to keep relations between people in
good condition. It includes courteous expressions.
(13) (a) May I come in and wait?
(Longman ‘may’)
(b) Could I come in and wait?
(c) Can I come in and wait?
(14) (a) I was wondering if you’d like to come to dinner.
(Longman ‘wonder’)
(b) I wonder if you’d like to come to dinner.
In (13), (a) is the most courteous expression because of may, and (b) is more courteous than (c) because a past
tense form of a modal verb is used.[4] In (14), (a), in which the past subjunctive is used, is more courteous than (b),
in which the indicative is used.[5]
Considering formality and politeness, it turns out that they are strongly related to modal verbs and the past
subjunctive. Formality and politeness may overlap, but politeness tends to be related to the past subjunctive, and
formality only to modal verbs.
The expressions below are the ones in which modal verbs are related to formality.
(15) In a Sentence for a Wish
May she rest in peace.
(Oxford ‘may’)
(16) In Conditional Adverbial Clauses
If you should change your mind, do let me know.[6]
(Oxford ‘should’)
† If you change your mind, do let me know.
[4] The degree of courtesy: might > may > could > can
[5] The degree of courtesy: I was wondering > I wondered > I am wondering > I wonder
[6] When should is used in conditional adverbial clauses, the degree of chance heightens.
-7-
In case you should need any help, here’s my number.
(Oxford ‘should’)
† In case you need any help, here’s my number.
(17) In Purpose Adverbial Clauses
There is a need for more resources so that all children may have a decent education.
(Oxford ‘may’)
† There is a need for more resources so that all children can have a decent education.
Helen turned the radio down lest she should miss the phone ringing.
(Macmillan ‘lest’)
What these clauses have in common is that if modal verbs are not used or other modal verbs are in use as in
sentences with the symbol †, their formality lowers. In other words, certain modal verbs heighten formality. Both
the inversion in (15) and lest in (17) have high formality themselves; therefore they require modal verbs
compatible with their high formality.
The source of formality in the sentences of (16) and (17), except the lest-clause, is modal verbs. Considering
what element of modal verbs is related to formality, it may well be their subjectivity and objectivity. Generally
speaking, subjective expressions have low formality, and objective ones high formality. This applied to subjective
and objective modal verbs, the formality of modal verbs will be as follows:
(18) The Formality of Modal Verbs
[Low Formality] will | would | can | could
[High Formality] must | should | may | might
Should and may have high formality, and can low formality. This relation is the same as that of formality of modal
verbs in (15), (16), and (17).
3.2. Historical Interpretation
A sentence for a wish and conditional and purpose adverbial clauses required the present subjunctive in older
English.[7]
(19) if love be blind, It best agrees with night.
(Romeo and Juliet, 3.2.9-10)
[7] Other than conditional and purpose adverbial clauses, concessive adverbial clauses also required the present
subjunctive in older English. In Present-day English may is used to emphasize the meaning of concession (but the use is rare). Concession means that ‘I admit that it is true, but it doesn’t matter.’
Although this may sound like a simple process, great care is needed. (Longman ‘may’)
Though news be sad, yet tell them merrily. (Romeo and Juliet, 2.4.21)
-8-
Come, thick night, And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of Hell, That my keen knife see not the wound it
makes, Nor Heaven peep through the blanket of the dark To cry, ‘Hold, hold’.
(Macbeth, 1.5.49-53)
[Notes]
• that = so that
As to (15), the present subjunctive is sometimes used even in Present-day English, though only in idiomatic
expressions such as ‘God bless you.’ In the lest-clause in (17), the present subjunctive is often used even in
Contemporary English.
In older English the present subjunctive was used mainly in subordinate clauses with an emotional, uncertain,
or negative meaning, and it was also employed in a main clause semantically concerned with emotion (Usami,
1992: 161-4). A sentence for a wish of (15) is semantically concerned with emotion, conditional adverbial clauses
in (16) with uncertainty, and purpose adverbial clauses in (17) with uncertainty. The lest-clause, which is a
purpose adverbial clause with a negative meaning, may be concerned with negation.[8]
These present subjunctive usages were taken over by modal verbs and the indicative. During this process,
with the frequency of its use lower, the present subjunctive obtained higher formality. The process continued, so
that the present subjunctive almost died out. As a result, other expressions with high formality were required, and
the role came to be played by objective modal verbs.
3.3. Purpose Adverbial Clauses
I will analyze purpose adverbial clauses more in detail because various modal verbs are used in them.
Purpose adverbial clauses are classified into two categories: affirmative clauses (the so that-clause and the in
order that-clause) and negative ones (the for fear that-clause and the lest-clause). In order that and lest have high
formality (Oxford, ‘lest’ & ‘in order that’).
(20) The Number of Occurrences of Modal Verbs in Purpose Adverbial Clauses
so that in order that for fear that lest so that + not
can 5442 / 1774 16 / 33 0 / 0 0 / 0 211 / 78
will / ’ll 844 / 174 1 / 1 27 / 5 0 / 0 249 / 43
may 439 / 189 39 / 35 9 / 0 1 / 4 14 / 7
shall 13 / 10 0 / 1 0 / 0 0 / 0 1 / 2
must 17 / 13 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
could 3846 / 1205 8 / 18 5 / 1 2 / 0 217 / 81
would / ’d 1607 / 343 2 / 7 70 / 11 5 / 2 537 / 107
might 467 / 112 40 / 22 37 / 8 3 / 2 16 / 6
should 41 / 62 4 / 16 1 / 0 32 / 27 7 / 23
• COCA / BNC
• The subject following a subordinate conjunction is a pronoun in order to avoid ‘demonstrative
adjective that + noun’.
[8] Concessive adverbial clauses tell that something is true (I admit that it is true), but negate the importance of it
being true (but it doesn’t matter). Therefore concessive adverbial clauses may be semantically concerned with
negation.
-9-
The basic combinations are ‘so that + can/could’, ‘in order that + may/might’, ‘for fear that + will/would’, ‘lest +
should’. The formality of conjunctions in purpose adverbial clauses is highly correlated with that of modal verbs
used with them.
3.4. Other Expressions Concerned with Formality
When would and should are interchangeable, should sometimes represents higher formality, and tends to be
used more often in BrE than in AmE.
(21) The Differences between BrE and AmE [9]
(a) When should represents high formality in BrE
(i) Represent the meaning of desire [10]
BrE: I should like to call my lawyer.
(Oxford ‘should’)
AmE, BrE: I would like to call my lawyer.
(ii) Represent the meaning of volition in the main clause of a subjunctive sentence
BrE: If I were asked to work on Sundays, I should resign.
(Oxford ‘should’)
AmE, BrE: If I were asked to work on Sundays, I would resign.
(b) When should is not concerned with formality
(i) Emphasize uncertainty
BrE: I should imagine it will take about three hours.
(Oxford ‘should’)
AmE: I would imagine it will take about three hours.
(ii) Represent emotion [11]
BrE: I find it astonishing that he should be so rude to you.
(Oxford ‘should’)
AmE: I find it astonishing that he would be so rude to you.
The original root meaning of shall was obligation. Shall and will used in the same way, the root meaning of
shall changed from obligation to volition, which is the root meaning of will. As a result, should, the past form of
shall, obtained two meanings in both its root and epistemic meanings respectively.
[9] Should in (21-a) and (21-b-i) must be preceded by a first person subject.
[10] In this usage should and would represent politeness as well as formality.
[11] See Swan (2005: 512-3) and Takaie & Hayashi (2004: 72-3).
-10-
(22) The Double Meanings of Should
(a) Its root meanings
(i) Obligation: derived from shall (must).
(ii) Volition or desire: derived from will.
(b) Its epistemic meanings
(i) In the actual domain: derived from shall (must).
(ii) In the imaginary domain: derived from will.
Concerning shall, its original meanings have almost come to be represented by must, and its new meanings by will.
As a result, the frequency in use of shall has become low, particularly in AmE. Should, in the usage of (22-i), has
fixed its position [12], but in the usage of (22-ii) would has almost replaced should, especially in AmE. In this
process, with the frequency of its use lower, should in the usage of (22-ii) has obtained higher formality. As for
(21-b), it seems that should is not related to formality, but if would has prevailed in BrE, that will possibly
heighten the formality of should.
3.5. The Difference of Usage between Should and May
Should and may, objective modal verbs, tend to represent high formality, but there has not yet been any
explanation held for the difference of usage between them. It may be that the difference of usage between should
and may is related to their root and epistemic meanings, but it is difficult to explain it completely. Here I will take
up modal verbs used in purpose adverbial clauses.
In purpose adverbial clauses with a negative meaning, will, would, and should are mainly used, and these
have a common root meaning, as stated in 3.4. In purpose adverbial clauses with an affirmative meaning, can,
could, may, and might are chiefly used. Considering that in Old English may (magan) had a meaning of ability,
these four modal verbs have a common root meaning. Therefore it may well be that should and may used in
purpose adverbial clauses are related to their root meanings.[13]
[12] One of the reasons may be that must was originally the past form of mōtan, which prevented must from
making its past form. [13] In a concessive adverbial clause, a fact is mentioned, but what will be referred to in the main clause will
differ from what will normally be extracted from the fact. That will cause doubt about the trueness of the fact
mentioned in the subordinate clause. This sort of doubt is possibly expressed through may.
-11-
4. A Null Modal Verb
4.1. The Present Subjunctive and Should
4.1.1. Expressions Mainly Requiring the Present Subjunctive
In the historical course of English the present subjunctive has been replaced by modal verbs, particularly
should and may. Even in Present-day English, however, there are expressions which mainly require the present
subjunctive.
(23) In Mandative That-clauses
It is important, in my submission, that a wider view of the matter be taken.
(Longman ‘submission’)
The doctor insisted that he not be moved.
(Radford, 2009: 108)
(24) In the On condition that-clause
A medical student from Southern California has received a Washington state scholarship on condition
that she practice in Othello. (Los Angeles Times 1992)
When couples know they must use only donor sperm, they do so only on the condition that they not
learn the identity of the donor and vice versa. (Detroit Free Press 1992)
(Schlüter, 2009: 286)
(25) In the Lest-clause
The government must act, lest the problem of child poverty grow worse.
(Swan, 2005: 302)
4.1.2. The Transition from Should to the Present Subjunctive
What is most intriguing about mandative that-clauses, the on condition that-clause, and the lest-clause, is that,
historically speaking, in these clauses the present subjunctive has not been used continuously, and only between
the 19th and 20th century did the transition from should to the present subjunctive occur. This fact was revealed
by the corpus-based studies on mandative that-clauses by Övergaard (1995) and on the on condition that-clause
by Schlüter (2009).
-12-
(26) The Transition of the Present Subjunctive, the Indicative, and Modal Verbs in Mandative That-clauses in
the 20th Century
AmE BrE
1900 1920 1940 1960 1990 1900 1920 1940 1960 1990
V 31 54 70 98 104 5 9 12 17 56
V-s 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 2
V-ed 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 7
should + V 43 23 9 12 0 86 90 84 84 35
shall + V 17 9 0 1 0 13 10 6 1 0
modal + V 5 1 6 3 1 7 4 8 11 2
合計 97 87 85 114 105 113 113 110 119 102
(Created based upon Övergaard, 1995: 15-20, 56)
[Notes]
• V: the base form of the verb
• V-s: the third person singular present tense form of the verb
• V-ed: the past tense form of the verb
• modal + V: may/might/must/would/be to (past tense) + V
(27) The Percentage of the Present Subjunctive and Should in the On condition that-clause and the
Lest-clause (AmE) [14]
(Created based upon COHA)
• V: the present subjunctive
• The subject in the lest-clause is one word of the noun.
The data of (27-a) correspond approximately to those of the corpus-based study by Schlüter (2009: 290).
I will compare the data of (26) and (27).
[14] See Appendices 1 and 2.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(a) In the on condition that-clause
V should V
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(b) In the lest-clause
V should V
-13-
(28) The Percentage of the Present Subjunctive and Should in Mandative That-clauses, the On condition
that-clause, and the Lest-clause (AmE)
These data suggest that in AmE the transition from should to the present subjunctive — in mandative that-clauses,
the on condition that-clause, and the lest-clause — started in or before the 19th century, and ended in the 20th
century. This phenomenon is not absolutely true of BrE: the conjunction on condition that generally requires the
indicative (Schlüter, 2009: 288). In mandative that-clauses and the lest-clause, however, the present subjunctive is
becoming more and more common.[15]
4.2. Previous Studies
4.2.1. Kjellmer (2009), Övergaard (1995)
Kjellmer gives the reasons below for the transition from should to the present subjunctive in mandative
that-clauses.
(29) The subjunctive is now a characteristic of especially AmE. The reasons for its come-back in AmE are,
first, that the ground was well prepared for the change through popular acquaintance with biblical
subjunctives and through the use of potentially subjunctive forms. Then the rise in prestige of such
varieties of English that were spoken by immigrants familiar with subjunctives in their mother tongues
may have tipped the balance. That the same tendency towards increasing use of the subjunctive is also
observable in BrE is only natural in view of the considerable impact of AmE on modern BrE.
(Kjellmer, 2009: 256)
These reasons, Övergaard (44-6, 51-4) also points out.
Kjellmer offers the explanations below for the unexpected word order of not and a verb in the clauses
requiring the present subjunctive.
[15] ‘Lest + one word of the noun + base verb’ yields 155 hits on BNC, and ‘lest + one word of the noun + should’
29 hits.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(a) In mandative that-
clauses
V should V
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(b) In the on condition
that-clause
V should V
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(c) In the lest-clause
V should V
-14-
(30) The unexpected order of the elements of the negated subjunctive (not + finite verb), finally may be
explained by a combination of circumstances: the construction that he not go was often seen as a
defective form of that he (should) not go
(ibid.: 256)
The word order of that he not go is tolerable, because when verbs except be are negated, not is positioned before
them though with the support of do. The word order of that he not be, however, is not, because when be is negated,
not is positioned after it. Considering that should is ellipsed, the problem of the unexpected word order of not and
be will be solved, and it will be possible to explain why the support of do is unnecessary.
4.2.2. Radford (2009)
Radford explains the present subjunctive in mandative that-clauses by using null constituents.[16]
(31) (a) She requested [CP [C that] [TP he [T should] [VP [V have] a second chance]]]
(b) She requested [CP [C that] [TP he [T ØSUBJ] [VP [V have] a second chance]]]
(Radford, 2009: 108-9)
He points out that (31-a) cannot offer a good explanation for the fact that in AmE the use of should is not
permitted. To solve this problem, he adopts a null modal.[17] There is a study showing the difference of meaning
between the present subjunctive and should. According to the study by Takaie and Hayashi (2004: 66-7), native
speakers feel that when should is used in mandative that-clauses, the meaning of mandate is weakened, compared
with when the present subjunctive is used. Therefore it is difficult to analyze the present subjunctive as the base
form of the verb before which should is omitted, and that makes Radford’s idea of a null modal most appealing.
4.2.3. Their Problems
The hypothesis has some problems, that immigrants in whose mother tongues the subjunctive was frequently
used revitalized the present subjunctive in English. Before entering into the discussion, we will make certain from
what countries those immigrants came to America. According to the U.S. Census (1790), the population of
Caucasians was composed of the British (60.9%), the Irish (9.7%), the Germans (8.7%), the Scottish (8.3%), the
Dutch (3.4%), the French (1.7%), the Swedish (0.7%), and the unknown (6.6%) (Bureau of the Census: 1168). In
the 19th century there were a large number of immigrants coming to America from Ireland and Germany (ibid.:
105-6). The subjunctive is not often used in every European language, but if languages had not allowed a
sufficient use of the subjunctive, they would certainly not have had an influence on AmE. It is difficult to compare
all the languages mentioned above; here I will compare the subjunctives and the conditional in German and
French with the subjunctive in English.
[16] null constituents: constituents which have grammatical and semantic features but lack audible phonetic features (Radford, 2009: 92)
[17] T in subjunctive clauses contains an inherently null subjunctive modal (below symbolised as Ø) rather than a
null counterpart of should (ibid.: 109)
-15-
(32) The Relationship of the Subjunctives and the Conditional between English, German, and French
The subjunctive A The subjunctive B
English The present subjunctive The past and past prefect subjunctive
German The subjunctive I (present and past) The subjunctive II (present and past)
French The subjunctive (present and past) The conditional (present and past)
• The subjunctive A: used mainly in nominal clauses in sentences with a mandative, emotional, or
negative meaning, and in adverbial clauses with a purpose, concessive, or negative meaning
The subjunctive B: used chiefly with if, wenn (=if), si (=if)
• The past tense is expressed in Germany by using ‘haben/sein + past participle verb’ and in French by
‘avoir/être + past participle verb’ with haben/sein and avoir/être conjugated in appropriate moods.
Haben and avoir are counterparts of have, and sein and être are of be.
In German the conjugation of regular verbs in the present subjunctive II is the same as that in the past
indicative. In French the conjugation in the present conditional (-rais, -rais, -rait, -rions, -riez, -raient) is similar to
that in the imperfect indicative (-ais, -ais, -ait, -ions, -iez, -aient), which corresponds almost to the past progressive
and partly to the simple past in English. In English the past subjunctive form is the same as the past indicative
form. Therefore, morphologically speaking, there is a high similarity in the subjunctive A between these three
languages.
In German the conjugation in the present subjunctive I (-e, -st, -t, -en, -t, -en) is similar to that in the present
indicative (-e, -est, -e, -en, -et, -en); moreover in French the conjugation in the present subjunctive (-e, -es, -e,
-ions, -iez, -ent) is similar to that in the present indicative (-e, -es, -e, -ons, -ez, -ent). In English the present
subjunctive form is almost the same as the present indicative form. Therefore the modal systems of these three
languages are similar to one another, at least in the present tense. In the past tense, however, English is different
from the other two in that it does not have the past tense.
The subjunctive I in German and the subjunctive in French are used in various grammatical constructions,
but the present subjunctive in English is limited to a considerable extent to the use in mandative that-clauses. In
older English the (present) subjunctive was used in various grammatical constructions as in German and French,
and its usages were almost the same as theirs. English having replaced most present subjunctive usages with the
indicative and modal verbs, the present subjunctive in Present-day English needs to be regarded as significantly
different, because of its low productivity, from the subjunctive I in German and the subjunctive in French.
Considering that the present subjunctive in English differs from the subjunctives in other languages, the
explanation is impractical that immigrants in whose mother tongues the subjunctive was often used identified the
present subjunctive in English with the subjunctive in their mother tongues. In European languages the
subjunctive is used in a wider range of clauses such as purpose and concessive adverbial clauses. If those
languages had influenced English, the transition from should to the present subjunctive would have occurred in
other clauses in addition to mandative that-clauses. Therefore we cannot depend upon immigration to explain the
revival of the present subjunctive.
Radford’s idea of a null modal is that of an auxiliary verb such as be, do, and have. An auxiliary verb is
functional and does not have a specific meaning. The idea of a null auxiliary verb can solve the structural problem
of the unexpected word order of not in mandative that-clauses, and it can also explain the fact that mandative
-16-
that-clauses require base verbs. It cannot, however, demonstrate why the transition from should to the present
subjunctive occurred between the 19th and 20th century. To explain this, a semantic approach is necessary. I will
try to explain how it was that should was replaced by the present subjunctive in mandative that-clauses by setting
root and epistemic meanings to a null auxiliary verb.
4.3. The Present Subjunctive and a Null Modal Verb
4.3.1. The Present Subjunctive and Its Epistemic and Root Meanings
The meaning of the present subjunctive used in the on condition that-clause and the lest-clause is epistemic.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, in older English the present subjunctive was used in conditional and purpose clauses,
representing uncertainty. The meaning of uncertainty of the present subjunctive corresponds to the epistemic
meanings of modal verbs, but it does not represent a specific confidence level of the speaker. In general, epistemic
modal verbs do not appear in the if-clause because if they were used in it, the epistemic meanings of if with
approximately 50% confidence and of modal verbs with x% would influence each other, so that the speaker’s
confidence level that the entire if-clause showed would be ambiguous. In older English, since the present
subjunctive with an epistemic meaning did not represent a specific confidence level of the speaker, it was used in
the if-clause though its meaning was epistemic.
In Present-day English the on condition that-clause and the lest-clause are rarely used. This means that the
present subjunctive with an epistemic meaning is scarcely ever used. It is mainly in mandative that-clauses that
the present subjunctive is used in Present-day English. It is thought in general that the meaning of mandate stems
from verbs or adjectives before the that-clause such as insist or important. Suppose that the present subjunctive
itself has a meaning. It may well have the root meanings of must and should: mandate.
4.3.2. The Epistemic Present Subjunctive and Its Formality
As discussed in Chapter 3, objective modal verbs, particularly should and may, tend to represent high
formality. In older English, instead of should and may, the present subjunctive was employed. This means that the
present subjunctive tend to represent high formality as well.
(33) The Number of Occurrences of Conditional Adverbial Clauses (per million words, AmE)
spoken fiction magazine newspaper academic
if 3,101.63 2,749.56 2,371.71 1,900.94 1,391.71
unless 71.47 68.93 73.33 68.03 58.45
on condition that 0.14 0.19 0.37 0.69 0.44
(Created based upon COCA)
Of these three conjunctions, the on condition that-clause is the most formal. As stated in 3.2, in older English
subordinate clauses with a negative meaning tended strongly to require the present subjunctive. Unless, despite its
negative meaning, requires the indicative. This is because the formality of unless is not high enough to require the
present subjunctive. On the other hand, on condition that, having high formality, is used with the present
subjunctive. Therefore it may well be that the use of the present subjunctive depends not on meaning but on
formality.
-17-
4.3.3. The Bare Infinitive, the Imperative, the Present Subjunctive, and Modal Verbs
The present subjunctive is expressed by using base verbs. Their use, without the support of modal verbs or to,
is limited to the bare infinitive and the imperative other than the present subjunctive. These three usages of base
verbs have a semantic similarity. The bare infinitive is used after mandative verbs such as make, have, and let and
perceptional verbs such as see, hear, and feel; here we deal only with the bare infinitive used with mandative
verbs.
(34) (a) They made us work for 12 hours a day.
(Macmillan ‘make’)
(b) I’ll have someone bring your luggage up right away.
(Macmillan ‘have’)
(c) Alice’s mom won’t let her come with us.
(Macmillan ‘let’)
(35) (a) The heavy clouds were edging nearer, and Jessamy glanced up uneasily as they got out of the car. ‘It
looks as if it’s going to rain. I don’t think it’s a good idea to stay here.’ ‘It isn’t going to rain,’ Julius said.
‘Go ahead and get your sketches done.’
(BNC H8F 2630-34)
(b) ‘May I start now?’ ‘Yes, go ahead.’
(Oxford ‘go’)
Mandative verbs range in meaning from strong mandate (make) to weak mandate (have) to permission (let).
The imperative in (35-a) can be interpreted as representing strong or weak mandate, and the imperative in (35-b)
represents permission. Both mandative verbs and the imperative have the meanings of strong mandate (must),
weak mandate (should), and permission (may). Suppose that base verbs themselves have a meaning. They will
have the root meanings of objective modal verbs (must, should, and may), and it is possible to apply this idea to
the present subjunctive because it is expressed by using base verbs.
4.3.4. The Base-formalization of the Verb
First of all we will discuss the construction of ‘verb + to-infinitive’. Although limited to colloquial
expressions, to and its preceding verbs are pronounced as one word: wanna (want to), gonna (going to), gotta (got
to), hafta (have to), usta (used to), oughta (ought to), etc.
(36) (a) I want {to sleep}.
(b) I {want to} sleep. (I wanna sleep.)
Considering want and to as a group, it is possible to regard want to or wanna as an auxiliary verb, and sleep as the
bare infinitive.
Next we will hold a discussion on the construction of ‘subject + verb + object + bare infinitive’.
-18-
(37) (a) I can’t let [TP you [T to] have my password]
(b) She requested [CP [C that] [TP he [T should] [VP [V have] a second chance]]]
(Radford, 2009: 108, 111)
The construction of ‘subject + verb + object + bare infinitive’ is similar to that of the present subjunctive used in
mandative that-clauses. Therefore it is possible to think collectively of the bare infinitive and the present
subjunctive as a usage of base verbs.
Make and let require the bare infinitive, but force and compel, having a similar meaning to make, and allow
and permit, similar in meaning to let, require the to-infinitive. Only the verbs that meet the two conditions below
can require the bare infinitive.
(38) The Conditions Necessary for Verbs to Have the ‘Subject + Verb + Object + Bare Infinitive’
Construction
(a) A subject has a superiority over an object.
(b) Verbs are frequently used and colloquial.
Comparing make and let with force, compel, allow, and permit, the former are more often used and more
colloquial than the latter. The conditions of (38) can be applied to mandative that-clauses. Mandative that-clauses
are used regardless of formality; therefore they allow the use of base verbs.
There is a verb that requires the bare infinitive other than the verbs mentioned above. It is help. Help does not
have a mandative meaning, but it meets the conditions of (38). It allows the use of both the bare infinitive and
to-infinitive, but the bare infinitive is more common.
(39) Can you help me find my glasses?
(Macmillan ‘help’)
-19-
(40) The Percentage of the Bare Infinitive and To-infinitive after ‘Help/Helps/Helped/Helping + Personal
Pronoun’ (AmE) [18]
(Created based upon COHA)
• Personal pronouns: me, us, you, her, him, and them
The transition from the to-infinitive to the bare infinitive after help is similar to that from should to the present
subjunctive on (27) and (28). On BNC ‘help/helps/helped/helping + personal pronoun + bare infinitive’ yields
2793 hits (63%), and ‘help/helps/helped/helping + personal pronoun + to-infinitive’ 1627 hits (37%). In BrE the
transition from the to-infinitive to the bare infinitive is slower than in AmE, but it is steadily advancing.
4.3.5. The Transition from Should to a Null Modal Verb
In Present-day English the present subjunctive is used only in mandative that-clauses, the on condition
that-clause, and the lest-clause. In older English it was also used in purpose and concessive clauses, but it is not in
Contemporary English. Whether or not the present subjunctive is used in a subordinate clause depends upon
modal verbs. The subordinate clauses in which should was used in older English requires the present subjunctive,
and the ones in which other modal verbs or the indicative was used does not. Which leads to the probability that
should itself triggered the transition to the present subjunctive.[19]
The present subjunctive is semantically similar to modal verbs, and it also has a constructive similarity to
them in that both require base verbs. In the discussion below I will regard the present subjunctive as a null modal
verb.
The reason why the transition from should to a null modal verb started in AmE in the 19th century is
probably that should obtained high formality. Should and the present subjunctive were interchangeable, and the
presence of the present subjunctive, the formality of which was higher than that of should, kept the formality of
should relatively low. The frequency in use of the present subjunctive became low, which made the formality of
should higher. As stated in 3.4, in AmE should was replaced by would; as a result the formality of should became
higher, which is the reason why the transition of should to a null modal verb started in AmE. As far as mandative
that-clauses are concerned, their formality is not high enough to be used simultaneously with should. In
[18] See Appendix 3.
[19] Kjellmer (2009: 251) points this out, but he does not mention what element of should triggered the transition
to the present subjunctive.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(a) Help and the infinitives
V to V
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
(b) Help and the infinitives
V to V
-20-
consequence the alternative expression for should became necessary. As the substitute, a null modal verb has been
employed, possibly with the support of the structurally and semantically similar construction of ‘mandative verb +
object + base verb’. Moreover the transition from the to-infinitive to the bare infinitive after help may have
stimulated the transition from should to a null modal verb.
Since should is a modal semantically similar to the present subjunctive, it can be classified as a subjunctive
modal verb. The transition from should to a null modal verb can be paraphrased by that from a subjunctive modal
verb to a null modal verb. This transition is the very same as the historical English trend of the subjunctive having
been replaced by modal verbs.
4.4. Conclusion
Base verbs used in mandative that-clauses are generally classified, even in Present-day English, as the
present subjunctive. The transition from should to base verbs is also analyzed in general as the revival of the
present subjunctive.
(41) The Traditional Way of Comprehension of Base Verbs in Mandative That-clauses
Should
The present subjunctive
If base verb in mandative that-clauses are regarded as the present subjunctive, it is difficult to explain why the
present subjunctive has revived in Present-day English.
(42) The Novel Way of Comprehension of Base Form Verbs in Mandative That-clauses
Ø
Should
The present subjunctive
Considering these base verbs to be those after a null modal verb (Ø), it is possible to explain the reason for the
transition from should to base verbs.
In the end I will show the classification of modal verbs including a null modal verb.
(43) The Classification of Modal Verb including a Null Modal Verb
[Subjective] will, would, can, could
[Objective] must, should, may, might, Ø
-21-
5. After the Discussion
In this thesis I have been analyzing the present subjunctive by using a null modal verb, but only in theory
does it exist, and no one is conscious of it in daily language use. In this sense it is not persuasive. Here we will
suppose that a null modal verb does not exist and that base verbs, which actually exist, work by themselves.
Base verbs are divided into two usages: one is when they are used with main grammatical elements such as
auxiliary/modal verbs or to, and they appear secondarily; the other is when they appear as main grammatical
elements such as the present subjunctive or the imperative. In the former usage, auxiliary/modal verbs or to play
semantic and grammatical roles; in the latter, base verbs themselves do.
(44) The Usage of Base Verbs
(a) Semantic role: It represents a mandative meaning.
(b) Grammatical role: It does not require do-support when not is used.
If base verbs are given a role as a main grammatical element, it is possible to unify the present subjunctive used in
mandative that-clauses and the imperative. As far as the imperative is concerned, not is used with the auxiliary
verb do, but this is due to another grammatical rule under which English forbids not from being at the beginning
of a sentence.
(44) cannot explain all usages of base verbs in English, but it is helpful in terms of the mood. If the mood in
English is defined by the conjugation of the verb, it has almost collapsed, and the grammatical jargon on the mood
such as ‘the present subjunctive’ or ‘the imperative’ no longer provides any benefit. Therefore it is worthwhile to
regard base verbs as a main grammatical element in that it makes it possible to unify the main usage of the present
subjunctive and the imperative without the idea of the mood.
-22-
Appendices
Appendix 1
1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900
On condition that V 0 2 4 3 2 2 1 1 5 14
Should 1 9 17 17 19 10 23 21 11 6
Lest V 9 45 110 112 87 84 68 90 138 135
Should 14 111 139 165 194 182 202 179 184 118
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
On condition that V 13 21 13 14 17 12 10 10 9 6
Should 16 5 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
Lest V 164 149 177 130 128 100 135 119 75 117
Should 109 66 28 16 8 6 11 5 3 1
(Created based upon COHA)
• V: the present subjunctive
• In the lest-clause, the subject is one word of the noun.
Appendix 2
on condition that Present
Subj. should shall
Modal
Verbs
Ambi-
guous
Indic. or
Subj.
Unsort-
able Total
1820 2 9 2 5 1 8 0 27
1830 4 17 1 6 3 3 1 35
1840 3 17 0 7 9 8 0 44
1850 2 19 3 7 8 6 0 45
1860 2 10 2 6 8 6 1 35
1870 1 23 3 17 4 6 0 54
1880 1 21 3 9 7 14 1 56
1890 5 11 3 15 9 8 1 52
1900 14 6 3 1 3 10 1 38
1910 13 16 1 6 6 9 1 52
1920 21 5 3 11 15 8 0 63
1930 13 3 0 4 5 13 0 38
1940 14 3 0 6 3 10 0 36
1950 17 1 0 7 1 6 0 32
1960 12 0 0 6 5 4 0 27
1970 10 0 0 3 5 4 1 23
1980 10 0 0 0 3 4 0 17
1990 9 0 0 2 3 3 0 17
2000 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 8
-23-
(Created based upon COHA)
• Modal Verbs: would (86), will (18), could (6), might (5), can (2), may (2), must (2)
• Ambiguous: impossible to judge the present subjunctive or the present indicative
• Indic. or Subj.: the present, past, or past perfect indicative, or the past or past perfect subjunctive
Appendix 3
1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900
help/helps/helped/help
ing + a personal
pronoun
V 0 3 30 61 70 108 170 178 210 231
to V 3 25 49 61 130 147 232 257 294 308
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
help/helps/helped/help
ing + a personal
pronoun
V 387 422 437 462 625 571 652 902 1563 1928
to V 355 258 206 186 205 150 153 130 173 140
(Created based upon COHA)
• Personal pronoun: me, us, you, her, him, and them
-24-
References
Brooke, Nicholas (ed.) (1990) The Tragedy of Macbeth, Oxford University Press
Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970
Available at http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1790.html
Coates, Jennifer (1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries, Croom Helm Ltd.
Kjellmer, Göran (2009) “The Revived Subjunctive”, Günter Rohdenburg, & Julia Schlüter (eds.), One Language,
Two Grammars?: Differences between British and American English: 246-56, Cambridge University Press
Leech, Geoffrey (2004) Meaning and the English Verb (3rd Edition), Pearson Educated Limited
Levenson, Jill L. (ed.) (2000) Romeo and Juliet, Oxford University Press
Övergaard, Gerd (1995) The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th Century,
Almqvist & Wiksell International
Palmer, F. R. (2001) Mood and Modality Second Edition, Cambridge University Press
Radford, Andrew (2009) Analysing English Sentences: A Minimalist Approach, Cambridge University Press
Sawada, Harumi (1993) Viewpoints and Subjectivity: Analyses of the Modal Auxiliaries in Japanese and in
English, Hitsuji-shobo（澤田治美（1993）『視点と主観性―日英語助動詞の分析―』ひつじ書房）
Sawada, Harumi (2006) Modality, Kaitakusha（澤田治美（2006）『モダリティー』開拓社）
Schlüter, Julia (2009) “The Conditional Subjunctive”, Günter Rohdenburg, & Julia Schlüter (eds.), One Language,
Two Grammars?: Differences between British and American English: 277-305, Cambridge University Press
Swan, Michael (2005) Practical English Usage (Third Edition), Oxford University Press
Takaie, Shuji & Ryujiro Hayashi (2004) Lexis Planet Board, Obunsha（鷹家秀史・林龍次郎（2004）『詳説レ
クシスプラネットボード』旺文社）
Ukaji, Masatomo (2005) History of the English Language (the 8th Volume in a Series of Books on Present-day
English Linguistics), Kaitakusha（宇賀治正朋（2005）『現代の英語学シリーズ〈第 8巻〉英語史』開
拓社）
Usami, Unio (1992) Research on Old English Grammar, Gakushuin University（宇佐美邦雄（1992）『古英語文
法研究』学習院大学）
Dictionaries
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 4th Edition
Macmillan English Dictionary
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 7th Edition
Corpora
BNC: British National Corpus (100 Million Words, 1980s-1993)
Available at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ and http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
COCA: Corpus of Contemporary American English (450 Million Words, 1990-2012)
Available at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
COHA: Corpus of Historical American English (400 Million Words, 1810-2009)
Available at http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/
