Cover not available
Part of
Keys to the History of English: Diachronic linguistic change, morpho-syntax and lexicography
Edited by Thijs Porck, Moragh S. Gordon and Luisella Caon
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 363] 2024
► pp. 103–119

Modality and the English subjunctive in noun clauses

A diachronic study

| RWTH Aachen University
The paper starts with a survey of earlier studies on the subjunctive in English noun clauses, and it promises the analysis of the parameter modality expressed by third person singular present tense verbal syntagms in a corpus of almost 550,000 words. Two models of modality are distinguished; in the first model, the relevant descriptive parameters are fact and non-fact modality, in the second root and epistemic modality. The subjunctive realises non-fact modality in the first, root modality in the second model. The application of both models to the corpus analysis yields a frequency descrease of noun clauses expressing non-fact/root modality, but only the second model, which includes meaning specifications of the competitors of the subjunctive, allows the prediction that they will probably guarantee the survival of the subjunctive.
Keywords: non-fact vs fact modality, root vs epistemic modality, periphrastic expression, modal construction, semi-modal construction, permission, volition, obligation, possibility, futurity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and research method
  • 3.Diachronic analysis of subjunctive use
    • 3.1The non-fact vs fact model of modality
    • 3.2The root vs. epistemic model of modality
    • 3.3The modality of periphrastic expressions
  • 4.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.363.05moe
References (29)
References
Burrow, J. A. & T. Turville-Petre. 1992. A book of Middle English. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crawford, W. J. 2009. The mandative subjunctive. In G. Rohdenburd & J. Schlüter (Eds.), One language, two grammars?, 257–276. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillbrandt, E.-L. 2006. The development of the mandative subjunctive in the Early Modern English period, Trames 10(2). 135–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, H. 1965. A dictionary of modern English usage, 2nd edn. Revised by E. Gowers, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Görlach, M. 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1986. The present subjunctive in contemporary British English, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 19. 61–74.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. 1997. Mandative sentences. A study of variation on the basis of the British National Corpus [unpublished Lizentiats-Arbeit]. Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & G. K. Pullumm, 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. 1998. It is important that this study (should) be based on the analysis of parallel corpora: On the use of the mandative subjunctive in four major varieties of English. In H. Lindquist, S. Clintborg, M. Levin & M. Estling (Eds.), The major varieties of English. Papers from Maven 97, Växjö 20–22 November 1997 (Acta Wexionensia Humaniora 1), 96–130. Växjö University.Google Scholar
2018. It is time that this (should) be studied across a broader range of Englishes: A global trip around mandative subjunctives, in S. C. Dehors (ed.), Modeling world Englishes: Assessing the interplay of emancipation and globalization of ESL varieties, 217–244. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. It is important that mandatives (should) be studied across different world Englishes and from a construction grammar perspective, In P. Núñez Pertejo, M. J. López-Couso, B. Méndez-Naya & I. Martínez (Eds.), Crossing linguistic boundaries: Systemic, synchronic and diachronic variation in English, 211–238. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. & A.-C. Gardner, 2017. Corpus-based approaches: Watching English change, in Brinton, Laurel (ed.), English historical linguistics: Approaches and perspectives, 96–130. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. & E. Norheim, 1988. The subjunctive in British and American English, ICAME Journal 12. 27–36Google Scholar
Leech, G., M. Hundt, C. Mair & N. Smith, 2009. Change in contemporary English. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, B. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moessner, L. 2007. The mandative subjunctive in Middle English. In G. Mazzon (Ed.), Studies in Middle English forms and meanings, 209–226. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2010. Mandative constructions in Middle English, ICAME Journal. Computers in English Linguistics 34. 151–168.Google Scholar
2020/2022. The history of the present English subjunctive: A corpus-based study of mood and modality. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mossé, F. 1945. Manuel de l’anglais du moyen âge des origines du xive siècle. Volume 1 : Vieil-anglais. Aubier.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 2006. An introduction to Early Modern English. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Övergaard, G. 1995. The mandative subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th century (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 94). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Peters, P. 1998. The survival of the subjunctive: Evidence of its use in Australia and elsewhere, English Worldwide 19(1). 87–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. 1999. Syntax. In R. Lass (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume 3: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruohonen, J. 2017. Mandative sentences in British English: Diachronic developments in newswriting between the 1990s and the 2010s, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 118(1). 171–200.Google Scholar
Rütten, T. 2014. Comparing apples and oranges: The study of diachronic change based on variant forms. In S. Mergenthal & R. Nischik (Eds.), Anglistentag 2013 Konstanz: Proceedings, 373–385. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Serpollet, N. 2001. The mandative subjunctive in British English seems to be alive and kicking … Is this due to the influence of American English? In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, 531–542. University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1992. Syntax. In R. M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume 1: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. T. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language, 3 vols. Brill.Google Scholar
Waller, T. 2017. The subjunctive in Present-Day English: A critical analysis of recent research, leading to a new diachronic investigation of the mandative subjunctive [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University College London.Google Scholar