Lexical and Grammatical Means of Expressing Supposition in Modern English

CONTENTS

 

Introduction ..3

Lexical and Grammatical Means of Expressing Supposition in Modern English ..4

Conclusion 15

References 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The subject of our course paper is how to express supposition in Modern English. Supposition expresses the degree of certainty that something is correct. In grammar the term supposition is closely associated with the category of Modality. By its nature modality expresses an action which depends on the attitude of the speaker, it does not refer directly to any characteristics of the event, but simply to the status of the proposition. Modality can easily express supposition, an action which is not real, but is/was supposed to happen and the realization of which depends on some conditions.

The aim of our course paper is to point out and describe the main means of expressing supposition in Modern English. Accordingly the structure of our course paper is purely devoted to the three means of expressing supposition. They are:

Grammatical means (mood forms of the verb)

Lexico-grammatical means (modal verbs)

Lexical means (modal words and expressions)

One of the means of expressing supposition is the mood forms of the verb. Of course, the Indicative and the Imperative moods have nothing to do with supposition, that’s why we are concentrated on Subjunctive and Conditional moods. These two moods cause some difficulties and yet there is no specific, concrete name for them (Oblique Moods, Conjunctive Moods, Spective Moods, etc.). But their nature, of course, doesn’t depend on what we call them: the Subjunctive expresses a condition and the Conditional-the consequence of that condition. The general categorical meaning of both moods in English is the same: it is the problematic supposition of an action.

The next means of expressing supposition in Modern English is the modal verbs. The name itself says that it has strong connection with modality. Verbs such as can/could, may/might, should, must, will/would, have to, ought to have their evident suppositional meanings.

The same can be said about the lexical means of expressing supposition-the modal words, such as maybe, perhaps, possibly, presumably, probably, evidently, obviously, apparently, etc.

LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL MEANS OF EXPRESSING SUPPOSITION IN MODERN ENGLISH

What is supposition and what does it express? Generally supposition expresses an action which is not real, but is/was supposed to happen and the realization of which depends on some conditions. But it must be said that supposition is strongly connected with Modality.So what is Modality?

Modality is concerned with the speaker's assessment of, or attitude towards the potentiality of a state of affairs. Modality therefore relates to different worlds. Assessments of potentiality, as in You must be right, relate to the world of knowledge and reasoning. This type of modality is known as epistemic modality. Modal attitudes apply to the world of things and social interaction. This type of modality is known as root modality. Root modality comprises three subtypes: deontic modality, intrinsic modality and disposition modality. Deontic modality is concerned with the speaker's directive attitude towards an action to be carried out, as in the obligation You must go now. Intrinsic modality is concerned with potentialities arising from intrinsic qualities of a thing or circumstances, as in The meeting can be cancelled, i.e. 'it is possible for the meeting to be cancelled.' Disposition modality is concerned with a thing's or a person's intrinsic potential of being actualised; in particular abilities. Thus, when you have the ability to play the guitar you will potentially do so. Notions of modality are expressed by cognition verbs such as I think, modal adverbs such as possibly, and modal verbs such as must. Modal verbs have a special status among modal expressions: they ground a situation in potential reality.” (Radden, Dirven,  2007).

       As we see, modality is a category grammar, which is not so much observed yet and does not have its concrete forms and rules, it is expressed by the help of other categories of verb. By the help of modal verbs, modal words and mood forms of the verb we can express different degrees of modality.

Mood forms of the verb is the grammatical means of expressing supposition. The category of mood, undoubtedly, is the most controversial category of the verb. It expresses the character of connection between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting process as a fact that really happened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i.e. the subject of hypothesis, speculation, desire. It follows from this that the functional opposition underlying the category as a whole is constituted by the forms of oblique mood meaning, i.e. those of unreality, contrasted against the forms of direct mood meaning, i.e. those of reality, the former making up the strong member, the letter, the weak member of the opposition.

In connection with expressing supposition, we are concentrated in the Oblique Moods or whatever other name we can choose to give these moods. The chief difficulty is because of the absence of a straightforward mutual relation between meaning and form in these moods. Sometimes the same external series of signs will have two (or more) different meanings depending on the 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 tomorrow (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, an action depending on certain conditions), and it means another thing 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. (Ilyish, 1971)

M.Y.Blokh suggests the name of “spektive”  mood, employing just the Latin base for the notion of “attitudes”. For the sake of simplifying the working terminology and bearing in mind the existing practice, the non-modal forms of the subjunctive can be called, respectively, subjunctive one (spective), subjunctive two (stipulative), subjunctive three (consective), against the background, the modal spective can simply be referred to as the modal subjunctive, which will exactly correspond to its functional nature in distinction to three “pure” subjunctive forms. (Blokh, 1983)

According to Ganshina and Vasilevskaya there are four Oblique Moods in Modern English, of which two are synthetical and two analytical. The synthetical moods are subjunctive I and subjunctive II. The analytical moods are the conditional and the suppositional.

Historically form he be- he were , he have- he had, etc. were tense forms ( present and past) of one mood- The subjunctive. But in the course of time their meaning has changed, they no longer indicate distinction of time but express different modality. The form he be is used with reference to any time indicating supposition or uncertainty. The form he were is often used with regard to the present indicating unreality. So these two moods are called subjunctive I ( be) and subjunctive II (were). They do not only express different modality but also differ in style.

Subjunctive I is rather obsolete in Modern English; it may be found in poetry, high prose and official documents (treaties, manifestoes, resolutions etc.)

For example:

Be his banner unconquered, resistless his spear. (Scott,132).

Let us unite our efforts and demand that the war now devastating Korea, a war that tomorrow may set the world ablaze, cease now. (“Manifesto to People of the World,”  Second World Congress of Partisans of Peace).

Subjunctive II is a living form which is used in colloquial speech and literary style as well:

For example:

As I heard the waves rushing along the sides of the ship and roaring in my very ear, it seemed as if Death were raging round this floating prison seeking for his prey. (Irving,228).

The other types of Oblique Moods, which are analytical, are The Suppositional and Conditional moods.

The Suppositional mood represents an action as problematic, but not necessarily contradicting reality. The realization of the action may depend on certain circumstances, but these circumstances are not contrary to fact. It is formed by combining the auxiliary verb should (for all persons) with the infinitive.

The suppositional mood is used to express necessity, order, suggestion, and also supposition.

For example:

At last they grew terrified that some evil should have befallen him…(Locke, 67-68).

Maggie was frightened lest she should have been doing something wrong…(Eliot,67).

The unreality of an action represented by the conditional mood is due to the absence of the necessary circumstances on which the realization of the action depends.

The unreality of an action expressed by the conditional mood is a dependent unreality: the realization of the action depends on the condition expressed in the subordinate clause (if clause). The conditional mood is formed by the auxiliary verbs should and would+ either indefinite (continuous) infinitive or perfect infinitive. (depending on tense).( Ganshina, Vasilevskaya,1964).

For example:

I should be happier if there were sharper criteria to help to make our choice.(Snow, 138)

Unless I had heard the story from his lips I should never have believed that he was capable of such an action. (Maugham, 342)

If I had waited for one of uncle’s horses I should have been too late. (Hardy, 49).

Historically these moods, which cause a lot of difficulties, are Subjunctive and Conditional moods. Their common natures are evident enough.

First, although the subjunctive expresses a condition and the conditional-the consequence of that condition, the general categorical meaning of both moods in English is the same: it is the problematic supposition of an action.

Second, neither the subjunctive nor the conditional possesses the category of tense because in the domain of non-real modality tense characteristics are irrelevant.

Third, the aspect opposition is characterized by a low frequency of occurrence.

Fourth, both the subjunctive and the conditional draw a distinction between simultaneity (non-perfect forms) and priority (perfect forms).

Perfect forms place the unreal action in the temporal plane of the past.In other words, there is no opposition between the subjunctive and the conditional, but there is syntactically motivated co-existence: the conditional occurs in the subordinating clause, the subjunctive- in the subordinate clause.

For example:

If I were you, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to do anything, Lester (Dreiser, 375).

The use of the conditional in the subordinating clause, which is more independent than the subordinate clause, makes the conditional a free category. As a free category, the conditional mood is sometimes used independently, with the condition implicitly included in various parts of the sentence or inferred from the context.

For example:

In the circumstances any one would have done the same (Maugham, 142).

The subjunctive is generally used in the subordinate clause. Therefore, it is a subordinate category. The independent use of the subjunctive is rare.

For example:

If only I were young again (Foley, Hall, 27).

As we see, the category of mood, for all the positive linguistic work performed upon it, continues to be a tremendously interesting field of analytical observation. There is no doubt that its numerous particular properties, as well as its fundamental qualities as a whole, will be further exposed, clarified, and paradigmatically ordered in the course of continued linguistic research.

Modal verbs are the lexico-grammatical means of expressing supposition. They are characterized by specific meaning, particular functions in the sentence and a number of morphological peculiarities. Accordingly they form a special class of verbs.

The specific meaning of these verbs is as follows: they denote neither actions nor states but combined with the infinitive of a notional verb (in a compound verbal predicate) show that the action (or state) expressed by the infinitive is considered as possible, desirable, necessary, etc.

Owing to their morphological peculiarities modal verbs are characterized as defective verbs, because they lack some forms. They lack –s in the third person singular in the Present tense and have no verbals, so they have no analytical forms; some of them lack the Past tense.

The modals that show supposition are must, should, may/might, can/could, will/would, ought, ranging from relative certainty to relative uncertainty. They frequently occur in conclusions and abstracts where the implications of results are discussed.

To start with can/could, it can be said that can acquires the meaning of doubt or uncertainty (but only in the negative and interrogative forms).

For example:

“Can this be Mr. Darcy?” thought she. (Austen, 474).

It can’t be that. (Show, Modelling financial derivatives with Matematica).

Can in combination with perfect infinitive refers to the action in the past.

For example:

Can she have told a lie? (Kane, 488).

The combination of can with the perfect infinitive may also indicate an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking. This is usually found with verbs that cannot have continuous form.

For example:

Can she really have been at home all this time?( Eason, 78).

Could is the past form of can in the Indicative mood, in the meaning of ability and possibility, but it may be used in the present-time contexts as a milder and more polite form of can, or as a form implying more uncertainty and unreality than can.

For example:

“Why not, she could be secretary, to some interesting man.”( Baum, 191)

You could articulate more distinctly with that cigarette out of your mouth (Wilkinson, 89)

In combination with the perfect infinitive could indicates that the action was not carried out in the past.

For example:

She could have explained the mystery (Shakespeare, 102)

As is seen from the above examples, the form could referring to the present is sometimes clearly opposed to can in that it expresses unreality, whereas can in affirmative sentences expresses reality.

What about may and might? In the meaning of supposition implying uncertainty, the verb may occurs in affirmative and negative sentences.

For example:

Erik says that you may be coming to New York (Wilson, 6).

We may be here for a fortnight (Maugham, 449).

In this meaning may can be followed by different forms of the infinitive depending on the time reference expressed.

May in combination with simple infinitive usually refers the action to the future.

He may soon come.( Smith, 279).

The action may also refer to the present but only with verbs that are not used in the continuous form.

For example:

He may not know about it (Batney, 38).

May in combination with the perfect infinitive, may also indicate an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking.

For example:

He may have been at home got about two hours (Howell, 882).

In the meaning of supposition implying uncertainty, the form might is also found with the reference to the present or future. It differs from the form may in that it emphasizes more the idea of uncertainty. It may be followed by the simple, continuous or perfect infinitive.

Might followed by the perfect infinitive indicates that the action was not carried out owing to certain circumstances (expressed in the sentence implied).

For example:

She thought she might have been consulted (Dickens, 617).

I don’t know how long the silence lasted, it might have been for half an hour.(Maugham, 46).

Comparing can and may it can be said that their use is parallel only in two meaning, possibility due to circumstances and permission. In these meanings, however, they are not always interchangeable for a number of various reasons.

Thus in the meaning of possibility due to circumstances the use of may is restricted only to affirmative sentences, whereas can is found in all kinds of sentences.

Their time reference is also different. May refers only to the present or future; the form might is used in past-time contexts only in reported speech. Can and could may refer to the present, past and future.

Both could and might combined with the perfect infinitive indicates that the action was not carried out in the past.

It follows from the above that the sphere of application of can in the meaning of possibility due to circumstances is wider than that of may.

The modal must has also connection with supposition. The modal verb must has only one form. It is used in present-time contexts with reference to the present or future and in combination with the perfect infinitive it refers to the past. In past-time contexts this form is used only in reported speech, i.e. the rules of the sequence of tenses are not observed with past. Must has the following meanings: obligation, prohibition, emphatic advice and supposition implying strong probability.

When must expresses supposition implying strong probability, its use is restricted in two ways:

1. It is not used with reference to the future. In this case we find modal words in the sentence.

For example:

He will probably come tomorrow (Triplett, 246)

2. It is not used in the interrogative or negative forms. It is found only in the affirmative form.

For example:

“He must be quite middle-aged by now,” went on Aunt Juley dreamily (Galsworthy, 121).

Must with verbs which do not have the continuous form, the simple infinitive is used to express supposition.

For example:

He must be over fifty (Prather, 18)

Must in combination with the perfect infinitive refers the action to the past.

For example:

Do you see him smoking over there? He must have finished his work (Shakespeare,243).

The combination of must with the perfect continuous infinitive indicates an action begun in the past and continued into the moment of speaking.

For example:

It must have been raining all the night, There are big puddles in the garden (Allen, 157)

Must and may can be compared in two meanings.

1. Both may and must serve to express supposition but their use is parallel. May denotes supposition implying uncertainty, whereas the supposition expressed by must implies strong probability.

For example:

For all I know, he may be an actor. His face seems so familiar.(Ebert, 416).

He must be an actor. His voice carries so well. (Stein, 252)

2. May and must are used to express prohibition in negative sentences. But may is seldom found in this meaning. In negative answers to questions with may asking permission we generally find must not or cannot.

The modal verb ought (to) may also express supposition implying strong probability.

For example:

The new sanatorium ought to be very comfortable ( Wilson,27).

The use of ought in this case is not very common as this meaning is normally rendered by must.

In modern English the modal verb should is used with reference to the present or future and it remains unchanged in reported speech.

Now about should expressing supposition implying strong probability.

For example:

News was at Kotgarh by midnight, and should be at Ziglaur by tomorrow (Kipling, 256).

Comparing must, should and ought(to), it can be said that all three verbs serve to express obligation. Must, however, sounds more forceful.

Both should and ought express obligation, advisability, desirability and are used when must would sound too forceful.

Should and ought are very much alike in meaning and are often interchangeable. In using ought, however, we lay more stress on the meaning of moral obligation, whereas should is common in instructions and corrections.