Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:51:39.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Be that as it may: The Unremarkable Trajectory of the English Subjunctive in North American Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2021

Laura Kastronic  and
Shana Poplack
Laura Kastronic
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Shana Poplack
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The English subjunctive has had a checkered history, ranging from extensive use in Old English to near extinction by Late Modern English. Since then, the mandative variant was reported to have revived, while the adverbial subjunctive continued to diminish. American English is heavily implicated in these developments; it is thought to be leading the revival of the former but lagging in the decline of the latter. Observing that most references to these changes are based on the written language, we examine the diachronic trajectory of the subjunctive in North American English speech. Adopting a variationist perspective, we carried out systematic quantitative analyses of subjunctive use under hundreds of triggers. Results show that, despite the differences in their diachronic trajectories, today both types are not only extremely rare but heavily lexically constrained. We implicate violations of the Principle of Accountability in the disparities between the findings reported here and the consensus in the literature with respect to subjunctive use in North American English.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 107 - 134
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Algeo, John. (1992). British and American mandative constructions. In Blank, C. (ed.), Language and civilization. A concerted profusion of essays and studies in honour of Otto Hietsch. Paris: Peter Lang Publishers. 599–617.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita. (2006). Precept and practice: The influence of prescriptivism on the English subjunctive. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Kastovsky, D., Ritt, N., & Schendl, H. (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000. Linguistic insights. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 33–53.Google Scholar
Auer, Anita. (2009). The subjunctive in the age of prescriptivism: English and German developments in the eighteenth century. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Anita, Peersman, Catharina, Pickl, Simon, Rutten, Gijsbert, & Vosters, Rik. (2015). Historical sociolinguistics: The field and its future. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas, Zingler, Tim, & Lohmann, Arne. (2019). The range of linguistic units: Distance effects in English mandative subjunctive constructions. Journal of Linguistics 56:1–38.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. (2015). Studying real-time change in the adverbial subjunctive. The value of the Bank of Canadian English. In Dossena, M. (ed.), Transatlantic perspectives on Late Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 13–36.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, & Fox, Susan. (2009). Was/were variation: A perspective from London. Language Variation and Change 21:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, William J. (2009). The mandative subjunctive. In Rohdenburg, G., & Schlüter, J. (eds.), One language, two grammars?: Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 257–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, & Merja, Kytö. (2010). Early Modern English dialogues. Spoken interaction as writing (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008-). The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990–2019. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Google Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C., & Gries, Stefan Th. (2020). Mandative subjunctive vs. should in world Englishes: A new take on an old alternation. Corpora 15:213–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Digesto, Salvatore. (2019). Verum a fontibus haurire. A variationist analysis of subjunctive variability across space and time: From contemporary Italian back to Latin. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Elsig, Martin, & Poplack, Shana. (2006). Transplanted dialects and language change: Question formation in Québec. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 12 (Selected Papers from NWAV 34): 77–90.Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan. (2012). The use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation. In Hernández-Campoy, J.M., & Conde-Silvestre, J. C. (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 156–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillbrandt, Eva-Lisa. (2006). The development of the mandative subjunctive in the Early Modern English Period. TRAMES 10:135–51.Google Scholar
Fowler, Henry Watson. (1965). A dictionary of modern English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter, & Walker, Terry. (2006). The subjunctive in adverbial clauses in nineteenth-century English. In Kytö, M., Rydén, M., & Smitterberg, E. (eds.), Nineteenth-century English: Stability and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 89–109.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. (1986). The present subjunctive in contemporary British English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 19:61–74.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. (1997). Mandative sentences: A study of variation on the basis of the British National Corpus. Unpublished ms., Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Hornoiu, Diana. (2019). The subjunctive in present-day English: Revival or demise? Analele Universităţii Ovidius din Constanţa. Seria Filologie 1:67–77.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. (1998a). 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 Lindquist, H., Klintborg, S., Levin, M., & Estling, M. (eds.), The major varieties of English (Papers from MAVEN 97). Växjö: Acta Wexionensia. 159–75.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. (1998b). New Zealand English grammar: Fact or fiction? A corpus-based study in morphosyntactic variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. (2009). Colonial lag, colonial innovation, or simply language change? In Rohdenburg, G., & Schlüter, J. (eds.), One language, two grammars?: Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. (2018). It is time that this (should) be studied across a broader range of Englishes. In Deshors, S. (ed.), Modeling world Englishes: Assessing the interplay of emancipation and globalization of ESL varieties. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 217–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Stig, & Norheim, Else Helene. (1988). The subjunctive in British and American English. ICAME Journal 12:27–36.Google Scholar
Kastronic, Laura. (2016). A comparative variationist approach to morphosyntactic variation in Hexagonal and Quebec French. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran. (2009). The revived subjunctive. In Rohdenburg, G., & Schlüter, J. (eds.), One language, two grammars?: Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 246–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Walker, Terry. (2006). Guide to A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 130). Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1966/1982). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: The Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, & Smith, Nicholas. (2009). Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. (2007). To as a connective in the history of English. In Lenker, U., & Meurman-Solin, A. (eds.), Connectives in the history of English. Berlin: de Gruyter. 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmood, Asim, Mahmood, Rashid, & Saeed, Tariq. (2011). The subjunctive in world Englishes: A study of British, American, and Pakistani Englishes. European Journal of Social Sciences 20:489–98.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. (2006). The subjunctive in Early Modern English adverbial clauses. Mair, C., & Reinhard, H. (eds.), Corpora and the history of English. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter. 249–63.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. (2010). Mandative constructions in Middle English. ICAME Journal. Computers in English Linguistics 34: 151–68.Google Scholar
Nichols, Ann. (1987). The suasive subjunctive: Alive and well in the upper Midwest. American Speech 62: 140–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Övergaard, Gerd. (1992). On the use of the mandative subjunctive in English. In Edlund, L. E., & Persson, G. (eds.). Language– the time machine. Umeå Studies in the Humanities. Umeå: Umeå University. 203–27.Google Scholar
Övergaard, Gerd. (1995). The mandative subjunctive in American and British English in the 20th century [Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 94]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. (1984). Grammar. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. (1998). The survival of the subjunctive: Evidence of its use in Australia and elsewhere. English World-Wide 19:87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Pam. (2009). The mandative subjunctive in spoken English. In Peters, P., Collins, P., & Smith, A. (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond [Varieties of English around the World G39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. 125–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana. (1992). The inherent variability of the French subjunctive. In Laeufer, C., & Morgan, T. (eds.), Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 235–63.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Lealess, Allison V., & Dion, Nathalie. (2013). The evolving grammar of the French subjunctive. Probus 25:139–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, & Malvar, Elisabete. (2007). Elucidating the transition period in linguistic change. Probus 19: 121–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Torres Cacoullos, Rena, Dion, Nathalie, Berlinck, Rosane de Andrade, Digesto, Salvatore, LaCasse, Dora, & Steuck, Johnathan. (2018). Trajectories of change in Romance sociolinguistics. In Ayres-Bennett, W., & Carruthers, J. (eds.), Manual of Romance sociolinguistics (Manual of Romance linguistics book 18). Berlin: de Gruyter. 217–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Van Herk, Gerard, & Harvie, Dawn. (2002). Deformed in the dialects: An alternative history of non-standard English. In Watts, R., & Trudgill, P. (eds.), Alternative histories of English. London: Routledge. 87–110.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Walker, James A., & Malcolmson, Rebecca. (2006). An English “like no other”?: Language contact and change in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51:185–213.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Roussel, Basile. (2020). À la recherche du temps (et des modes) perdu(s) : une étude variationniste en temps réel du français acadien parlé dans le nord-est du Nouveau-Brunswick. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Ruohonen, Juho. (2018). Mandative sentences in British English: Diachronic developments in newswriting between the 1990s and the 2010s. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 118:171–200.Google Scholar
Rütten, Tania. (2015). For whom the bell tolls, or: Why we predicted the death of the mandative subjunctive. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 16.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. (2009). The conditional subjunctive. In Rohdenburg, G., & Schlüter, J. (eds.), One language, two grammars?: Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar. (2000). Corpus linguistics in the Asian context: Exemplary studies of the Kolhapur Corpus of Indian English. In Bautista, M. L. S., Llamzon, T. A., Sibayan, B. P., & Gonzalez, A. B. (eds.), Parangal cang Brother Andrew: Festschrift for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. 115–37.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar. (2011). The subjunctive in Philippine English–An updated assessment. In Bautista, M. L. S. (ed.), Studies in Philippine English: Exploring the Philippine component of the International Corpus of English. Mandaluyong City: Anvil Publishing. 159–73.Google Scholar
Serpollet, Noëlle. (2001). The mandative subjunctive in British English seems to be alive and kicking… Is this due to the influence of American English? In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., & Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference. Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. 531–42.Google Scholar
Sević, Radmila B. (1999). Early collections of private documents: The missing link in the diachronic corpora. In Beedham, C. (Ed.), Langue and parole in synchronic and diachronic perspective. Selected proceedings of the XXXIst annual meeting of the Societas. Linguistica Europaea, St. Andrews 1998. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 337–47.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. (2000). Synchrony and diachrony in the evolution of English: Evidence from the far reaches of Scotland. Doctoral dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Strathy Corpus of Canadian English. (2013). Created by the Strathy Language Unit at Queen's University. Available at: https://corpus.byu.edu/can/.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. (1898). A new English grammar. Part II, Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. (1998). Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10:153–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. (2001). Come/Came variation in English dialects. American Speech 76:42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Marijke J., & Rutten, Gijsbert. (2013). Ego-documents in a historical-sociolinguistic perspective. In van der Wal, M. J., & Rutten, G. (eds.), Touching the past. Studies in the historical sociolinguistics of ego-documents (Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 1). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlasova, Olga. (2010). The mandative subjunctive in American English: A corpus-based study on the use of mandative constructions. Master's thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Waller, Tim. (2017). The subjunctive in present-day English: A critical analysis of recent research, leading to a new diachronic investigation of the mandative subjunctive. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
ARCHER (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers), version 3.2. (2013). Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Current member universities are Bamberg, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Lancaster, Leicester, Manchester, Michigan, Northern Arizona, Santiago de Compostela, Southern California, Trier, Uppsala, Zurich.Google Scholar
CED (A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760). (2006). Compiled under the supervision of M. Kytö (Uppsala University) and J. Culpeper (Lancaster University).Google Scholar
QEC (Quebec English Corpus). (2006). Compiled by Shana Poplack, James Walker, & Rebecca Malcomson (University of Ottawa).Google Scholar
ARCHER (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers), version 3.2. (2013). Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Current member universities are Bamberg, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Lancaster, Leicester, Manchester, Michigan, Northern Arizona, Santiago de Compostela, Southern California, Trier, Uppsala, Zurich.Google Scholar
CED (A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760). (2006). Compiled under the supervision of M. Kytö (Uppsala University) and J. Culpeper (Lancaster University).Google Scholar
QEC (Quebec English Corpus). (2006). Compiled by Shana Poplack, James Walker, & Rebecca Malcomson (University of Ottawa).Google Scholar