Lexical and Grammatical Means of Expressing Supposition in Modern English

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.

Must, ought and should serve to express supposition implying strong probability. Must, however, seems to be in more frequent use than the other two verbs.

And finally about will and would. While shall and should are treated as two different verbs in modern English, will and would are considered to be forms of the same verb. But, however, it is to be noted, that in some of their meanings the use of will is parallel only to would which denotes an actual fact in the past; in other meanings will is found alongside of would which expresses unreality in the present or serves as a milder or more polite form of will.

The use of will and would are parallel in the following cases.

1. Will may be used to express supposition with reference to the present or to the future in combination with the simple infinitive, or to the past in combination with the perfect infinitive. This meaning is found with the second and third persons.

For example:

This will be the school, I believe.(Dewey, 231)

2. Would may be used rather sarcastically to express that something was to be expected. It is found in affirmative and negative sentences.

For example:

“Auntie Meg has been very brave.”  “Yes. She would be brave.”(Alcott, 156).

So as we see the modals must, should, may/might, can/could, will/would, ought, besides their other meanings, have their obvious suppositional meanings.

Modal words are the lexical means of expressing supposition. They serve to express the relation between the statement made in the sentence and reality as established by the speaker. With the help of these words the speaker expresses various degrees of certainty, supposition, desirability or undesirability of the action indicated in the sentence. Modal words are invariable parts of speech.

Semantically modal words may be divided into some groups.

1. those expressing supposition (e.g. maybe, perhaps, possibly, presumably, probably, evidently, obviously, apparently, etc.)

For example:

Perhaps I’ll be able to trace the murderers.(Paterson, 171)

Maybe this is the end.(Gakeri,37)

Probably he was not so young as he looked (Conrad,107)

2. those expressing certainty (e.g. certainly, of course, undoubtedly, no noubt, surely, decidedly, definitely, really, in fact, indeed, naturally, and some others).

For example:

It was indeed an unusual situation for him to find himself in (Boyle, 448)

3. those expressing (un)desirability (e.g. (un)luckily, (un)happily)

For example:

Fortunately, the men were genuine patriots and did not betray me. (Waldie, 189).

Luckily, found the man in the office and we quickly settled the difficulty. (Postley, 73)

So, like modal verbs, modal words also have their suppositional meanings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

After a deep analysis, we can conclude:

• Supposition expresses the degree of certainty, whether something is correct, real or not.
• Supposition is closely connected with modality, which expresses the attitude of the speaker and differs from tense and aspect from that it does not refer directly to any characteristics of the event.
• The Subjunctive and Conditional moods express supposition, with the help of auxiliary verbs should and would+ indefinite infinitive or perfect infinitive (depending on tense).
• 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 unreality of an action expressed by the Subjunctive mood expresses a condition, the realization of which may depend on certain circumstances.
• The lexico- grammatical means of expressing supposition is actualized by the help of modal verbs can/could, may/might, will/would, should, must and ought.
• The specific meaning of these verbs is as follows: they denote neither actions nor states but combined with the infinitive of a notional verb they show that the action or state expressed by the infinitive is considered as possible, desirable, necessary, suppositional etc.
• The lexical means of expressing supposition is actualized by the help of modal words, such as maybe, perhaps, possibly, presumably, probably, evidently, obviously, apparently, etc.

Besides all above mentioned points it should be also said that modality, for all the positive linguistic work performed upon it, continues to be a tremendously interesting field of analytical observation. There is no doubt that it will be further exposed, clarified, and paradigmatically ordered in the course of continued linguistic research.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

1. M.Y.Blokh “A Course of Theoretical English Grammar” Москва, 1983
2. B.Ilysh “The Structure of Modern English”, Ленинград, “Просвещение”, 1971
3. F.R.Palmer, “Mood and Modality” 2^nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press. 2001
4. Master P. “Grammar and Technical Writing” Washington, 2004
5. Ganshina M.A., Vasilevskaya N.M. “English Grammar” Moscow, 1964
6. Gordon E.M., Krylova I.P. “A Grammar of present-day English”1985
7. G.Radden and R. Dirven, “Cognitive English Grammar”, John Benjamins, 2007
8. Kaushanskaya, Kovner, Korzhevnikova “A Grammar of the English Language”, Москва, 2009
9. Л.С. Бархударов, Д.А. Штеллинг “Грамматика английского языка” Москва1973

     URLs

10. http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/modalityterm.htm
11. http://belozerovaineng.blogspot.com/
12. http://usefulenglish.ru/grammar/subjunctive-mood-summary

Fiction cited

13. Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. United Kingdom, 1813
14. Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar. (ed. John Dover Wilson) The New Shakespeare Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1968
15. Galsworthy, John. Indian Summer of a Forsyte, United Kingdom, 1918
16. Maugham, Somerset. Rain. New York, 1923

Dictionaries cited

17. Collins English Dictionary. 1979. London: Collins