A3b Structure of English

Helmi Salo
76411
University of Tampere
English Philology
Spring 2006

The Subjunctive in English

1. Introduction

It is hardly exaggerated to claim that the term subjunctive in the English language causes confusion to many. On

the one hand, there are speakers of English who have never heard of such a term. On the other, there are people

who acknowledge the existence of this verb form, but do not really know how to recognise or to use it.

Consequently, the aim of this essay is to study whether we can in fact recognise subjunctive forms in English, and

if so, to examine the contexts they occur in.

As regards methods, I will be looking at how different grammarians discuss the existence, the labelling and the

uses of the subjunctive. In addition, I will bring in the results of a recent study of actual usage in British and

American English, which will reveal differences in frequency with regard to the varieties of English concerned.

2. Subjunctive forms in English

2.1 Notional vs. formal approaches

There is disagreement among grammarians as regards recognising subjunctive forms in English. Moreover, those

acknowledging the existence of the subjunctive in English at all are divided into groups supporting two different

approaches, called the notional approach and the formal approach.

In the notional approach, it is accepted that most of the subjunctive forms are non-distinctive, that is, they look

the same as simple past and present forms and, thus, subjunctives are to be recognised according to the meaning

or the context of the clause rather than according to the form of the verb. Thomson and Martinet (1986:171), who

recognise two tenses of the subjunctive, the present and the past subjunctive, state that the present subjunctive has

an identical form with the indicative, with the exceptions of the third person singular lacking the –s at the end and

the base form be being the present subjunctive form of the verb be in all persons. They provide the following

examples:

The king lives here (simple present tense).

Long live the king (subjunctive).
 2
As for the past subjunctive, then, the past and the past perfect forms for all verbs except be are exactly the

same as their indicative equivalents, the simple past and the past perfect tense respectively. Be makes an

exception with its past subjunctive form being were for all persons. The subjunctives are to be distinguished from

the indicative forms in that they are preceded by if, if only, as though (or as if), wish or it is time. Thus, the verb

forms in the following examples provided by Thomson and Martinet (1986:172-3) can only be identified as

subjunctives on the basis of the meaning or context: If we all lived underground.

If only we had a rope!

He orders me about as if I were his wife.
I wish he hadn’t gone.
It is time we went.

Most grammarians disagree with the notional approach, however, and thus are proponents of the formal

approach in recognising the subjunctive. In this view, subjunctives are to be recognised by their distinctive form,

that is, the uninflected base form. The COBUILD grammar (1990:325) suggests the subjunctive form is the same

as what is left when the modal verb in the reported clause is omitted (example adapted from COBUILD

1990:325):

It was definite enough for a doctor to advise that she should have treatment.
→ It was definite enough for a doctor to advise that she have treatment.

Contrary to the notional approach, Swan (1995:541) points out that the same subjunctive forms are used in

both present and past sentences:

It is essential that every child have the same educational opportunities.

The judge recommended that Simmons remain in prison for at least three years.

However, this should not be mixed up with what Quirk et al. (1985:155) call the past subjunctive, or, the were-

subjunctive as in

If she were leaving, you would have heard about it.

Quirk et al. explain that their use of the term ‘past’ relates more to the verb’s mood than to its tense and the were-

subjunctive is so named because of the fact that the past subjunctive survives as a distinguishable form only in the

past tense of be. Indeed, the were-subjunctive is distinct from the past indicative only in the first and third person

singular forms of be (i.e. I was / if I were; she was / if she were). The present subjunctive form of the verb is be in

all persons. In my opinion, however, Quirk et al.’s use of ‘past’ to refer to mood instead of tense seems awkward
 3
and it meddles the terminology as it implies that the verb form has reference to the past even when that is not

the case:

If I were king… ≠ If I had been king…

Since other types of subjunctive, with the exception of the were-subjunctive, are realized by the base form of

the verb, it becomes evident that when a clause has any other subject than the third person singular, there is

normally no difference between the indicative and subjunctive forms. It is important to note, however, that there

is one environment for the subjunctive where the base form is distinctive in all persons, namely negative clauses.

These are clearly distinct from the indicative clauses in that the operator do is not used, but instead, with all verbs

except be, not is simply placed before the subjunctive. In the case of be, not may either precede or follow the

verb, whereas with were it always follows it (Quirk et al. 1985:156):

It is essential that this mission not fail. (cf. the indicative ...does not fail)
The senate has decreed that such students be not / not be exempted from college dues.
If I weren’t / were not your best friend, you would regret that remark.

2.2 Types of subjunctive

The labelling of the subjunctive form has also been a subject of disagreement amongst grammarians. In his

discussion of the English verb, Palmer (1988:46) argues that there is no such thing as the subjunctive in English

by stating that “the notion of a subjunctive mood is a simple transfer from Latin and has no place in English

grammar”. According to him, in the end, all the potential subjunctives should really be analysed as either past

tense forms or as the simple uninflected form, as in God save the Queen. In his view, even the “fossilized” were

in If I were you is nothing but a normal past, thus comparable to liked or took, and, consequently, proves nothing

of the existence of the subjunctive.

At the other end, Quirk et al. (1985:155) admit that “the subjunctive in modern English is generally an

optional and stylistically somewhat marked variant of other constructions”, but deny that it is as unimportant as

sometimes suggested. They even identify several categories of the subjunctive, namely the present form,

including the mandative subjunctive (as in We insisted that he leave at once) and the formulaic subjunctive (God

save the Queen), and the past form, or, the were-subjunctive (If I were rich…). In others words, not only do they

acknowledge the existence of the subjunctive mood, but also feel the need to categorise it according to different

kinds of uses.
 4
Johansson and Norheim (1988:27), then, argue that despite the fact that the subjunctive is quite a marginal

category in present-day English, it nevertheless needs to be identified given that, under certain circumstances, it

differs from the normal indicative forms and conveys “the meaning of ‘non-fact’, which is characteristic of the

subjunctive in other languages.” They, too, distinguish between three main uses of the subjunctive and label them

accordingly, but unlike Quirk et al., they categorise the mandative and the formulaic subjunctive as base-form

subjunctives and the were-subjunctive as such.

As regards the labelling of the forms, it is plausible to place the mandative and the formulaic subjunctives

under the same ‘branch’, since both of them consist of the base form. Therefore, it is arguably more convenient to

use Johansson and Norheim’s labelling, since it explains clearly how to form the subjunctive and also, avoids

possible confusion with the present tense form of the third person singular. For the same reason of clarity, it is

preferable to use the label were-subjunctive instead of past subjunctive.

Altogether, it is undoubtedly convenient to have the term subjunctive as a label for distinctive forms that

obviously exist and occur as alternatives to the indicative in the English language.

3. Uses of the subjunctive

3.1 The base-form subjunctive

3.1.1 Mandative contexts

The mandative subjunctive, or, as Leech and Svartvik (2002:395) call it, the productive subjunctive, consists of

the base form and, thus, lacks backshifting of tense; in other words, the present and past forms are

indistinguishable. This is the most common use of the subjunctive and it occurs in subordinate that-clauses. Quirk

et al. (1985:156) point out that this subjunctive is very productive since it can be used with any verb in a that-

clause when the clause is preceded by an expression of demand, recommendation, proposal, resolution, intention,

etc. The expression may be in the form of a verb (for example insist), an adjective (insistent) or a noun

(insistence):

They recommend
It is appropriate that this tax be abolished.
We were faced with the demand

Quirk et al. (1985:157) and Leech and Svartvik (2002:395-396) have listed some expressions which govern a

mandative subjunctive in the following that-clause:

VERBS: advise, ask, decide, demand, insist, move, order, prefer, propose, request,
 5
require, suggest
ADJECTIVES: advisable, appropriate, desirable, important, necessary, vital
NOUNS: condition, decision, decree, order, proposal, requirement, resolution

Leech and Svartvik also note that adjectives followed by a subjunctive can have a personal subject or an

impersonal it-construction, as in:

She was eager that the family stay together during the storm.
It is important that every member be informed about these rules.

Quirk et al. (1985:157) draw attention to two special cases of the mandative subjunctive. First, in clauses

where there is uncertainty as to the verb form, that is, where the base form can be analysed as either indicative or

subjunctive, they talk of neutralization of the two moods:

Our decision is that the schools remain closed.

Second, the use of the subjunctive after the verb insist is dependent on its meaning. When insist introduces an

indirect statement, it is followed by the indicative, but when it introduces an indirect directive, the subjunctive is

more likely:

She insists that he is guilty of fraud. (declare firmly ‘väittää’)

We insist that he be admitted to hospital immediately. (demand insistently ‘vaatii’)

According to Leech and Svartvik (2002:396), the mandative subjunctive is more commonly used in American

English than in British English and, analogously, in written and formal than in spoken English. Amongst the

alternative constructions, they suggest the putative should, which often substitutes the subjunctive especially in

British English, the indicative, rarer in American English, and finally, the for + infinitive construction:

Ann suggested that her parents (should) stay for supper.

It is essential that more decisions are taken by majority vote.
It is important for every member to be informed.

Johansson and Norheim (1988:28) state that British English prefers the should-construction to the subjunctive

and, also note that the auxiliary can indeed normally be inserted with no significant difference in meaning. In

their study on subjunctive uses in British and American English, they come to the conclusion that in British

English the subjunctive is used only in formal and legalistic style, whereas Quirk et al. (1985:157) suggest “there

are indications, however, that it [the mandative subjunctive] is reestablishing itself in BrE, probably as a result of

AmE influence”. Yet, Johansson and Norheim point out that since their corpora date from the 1960s, the usage of

the subjunctive forms might have changed, and, therefore, new data are needed to study the changes.

3.1.2 Clauses of condition and concession

 6
The base-form subjunctive is sometimes used in adverbial clauses, mainly in clauses of condition or

concession, more particularly in if-clauses (Quirk et al. 1985:158):

(Even) if that be the official view, it cannot be accepted.

Johansson and Norheim (1988:32) discover in their study that this use of the subjunctive is infrequent. Indeed,

most of the few examples found in the corpora were in fairly formal texts and contained the verb be (example

from Leech and Svartvik 2002:150):

Whatever be the reasons for it, we cannot tolerate disloyalty.

Johansson and Norheim continue that although the limited evidence does not suggest major differences between

British and American English uses, there is one exception, however, the archaic-sounding lest, which is restricted

to very formal use in British English, while it is more typical of American English (example from Quirk et al.

(1985:158):

The President must reject this proposal, lest it cause strife and violence.

Once again, the subjunctive may be substituted by a modal (COBUILD 1990:355):

He spoke in whispers lest the servants should hear him.

3.1.3 Formulaic

Another one of the base-form subjunctive uses is the formulaic subjunctive in certain set expressions (Quirk et al.

1985:157; Swan 1995: 566; Thomson and Martinet 1986:171):

Be that as it may. Come what may. Damn you!

God bless you. Heaven forbid. So be it.

The formulaic expressions are claimed to be formal and rather old-fashioned, “archaic” even, and Leech and

Svartvik (2002:150) state that the formulaic subjunctive “an infrequent construction in present-day English”.

Personally, I find it somewhat difficult to share this opinion, however. Admittedly, the formulaic subjunctive

probably is more commonly considered as belonging to formal written language, but surely it is used in both

formal and informal speech, too. For instance, to put emphasis on what you are saying – in a serious or ironical

manner (God bless America and God save the Queen are examples most of us have likely heard a number of

times). Probably the most common and widely known example of the formulaic subjunctive is the everyday use

of Goodbye, which originates from the expression God be with you (Thomson and Martinet 1986:171). I would

also claim that one context where this subjunctive is used simultaneously in written and spoken language, is that
 7
of song lyrics. Cases in point are, for example, an extract from Shania Twain’s That Don’t Impress Me

Much “Heaven forbid, it should fall out of place” or Nicole Kidman’s duet with Ewan McGregor, Come What

May.

3.2 The were-subjunctive

This subjunctive category is formal rather than notional and it is limited to one form, namely were, and thus,

allows a contrast in the past tense between indicative was and subjunctive were with first and third person

singular subjects. It conveys a hypothetical or an unreal meaning. Hence, it is used “in adverbial clauses

introduced by such conjunctions as if, as if, as though, though, and in nominal clauses after verbs like wish and

suppose” (Quirk et al. 1985:158, 1013):

I wish she were not married.

If only I were not so nervous.
Suppose he were lost.
I’d rather I were in bed.

In informal style, the were-subjunctive is often replaced by hypothetical past or indicative forms (Quirk et al.

1985:1013):

I wish she was not married.

Suppose he was / is lost, what would you do?

Quirk et al. (1985:158) state that this hypothetical past indicative is nowadays clearly preferred to the subjunctive

form and, therefore, examples of hypothetical were with a second person or plural subject (for example you

were..., they were...) are to be viewed as indicative, rather than as neutralization of indicative and subjunctive (see

3.1.1). They also want to draw attention to two special cases. First, as it were (‘so to speak’) is a fixed phrase and,

thus, was cannot replace were. Second, they note that “it is also normal in standard English to use were in the

fixed phrase If I were you” (Quirk et al. 1985:158).

Similarly, Johansson and Norheim (1988:34) come to the conclusion that the were-subjunctive is rarely used

in subordinate clauses, with the exception of hypothetical-conditional clauses and clauses introduced by as if and

as though where it is “clearly the dominant choice”. Nevertheless, there is one context where the were-

subjunctive is obligatory, that of hypothetical-conditional clauses in inversion (Johansson and Norheim 1988:35):

...were I on my death-bed...
...were it not for my fear that...
 8
The limited evidence of their corpora does not suggest any differences between uses in British and American

English.

5. Conclusion

This study of the subjunctive concludes that it is necessary, indeed, to have the term subjunctive as a label for

distinctive forms that obviously exist and occur as alternatives to the indicative in the English language. The

subjunctive is however a diverse category and within it there are three different subcategories to be recognised,

namely the mandative and the formulaic subjunctive, both included in the base-form subjunctive as a result of the

way they are realized, and finally, the were-subjunctive.

The mandative subjunctive, the most common of the three, is used in that-clauses following expressions, that is

verbs, adjectives and nouns, that convey some sort of demand, recommendation, proposal, resolution or intention,

for instance. It is equally used in clauses of condition or concession, mainly in the so-called if-clauses.

The formulaic subjunctive consists of different set expressions, such as So be it or (God) bless you.

Finally, the were-subjunctive, limited to the one form, were, conveys hypothetical condition. It is used

especially after clauses introduced by as if and as though, but in addition to this preference, it is obligatory in

hypothetical-conditional clauses in inversion.

As regards differences in British and American English usage, the mandative subjunctive seems to be more

common in American English, whereas British English prefers the modal should-construction. The formulaic

subjunctive is claimed to be an infrequent construction in present-day English as a whole. Finally, there seems to

be no evidence of differences in British and American English usage of the were-subjunctive, but, all in all, the

hypothetical past indicative is stated to be clearly preferred to the subjunctive form nowadays.

Works Cited
Collins COBUILD English Grammar (1990) London: Collins.
Johansson, S. and Norheim, E. (1998) “The subjunctive in British and American English.” ICAME 12, 27-36.
Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (2002) A Communicative Grammar of English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Palmer, F.R. (1988) The English Verb. Second edition. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of The English
Language. London: Longman.
Swan, M. (1995) Practical English Usage. Oxford: OUP.
Thomson, A. and Martinet, A. (1986) A Practical English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.