The Truly “Dark Side of the Subjunctive”

Oct 17, 2014 by

[Many thanks to Stephane Goyette, Olaf Koeneman, and Seth Johnston for helpful discussions related to this post!]

In his TED video, Phuc Tran explores a Whorfian idea that English having a subjunctive and Vietnamese lacking it leads the two peoples to engage with reality differently. According to him, Vietnamese people do not—and cannot, due to a grammatical gap in their language—think about “shoulda”, “coulda”, “woulda”. The Vietnamese can only think about things that happen in reality and are grammatically expressed through indicative mood. Tran’s claims are not limited to a connection between grammar and thought, however, as he makes a larger humanistic claim: instead of wasting energy thinking about what didn’t happen, they face reality head on. Which, all in all, makes Vietnamese a happier, more optimistic nation, Tran says.

In this post, I will not address the latter claim—that the Vietnamese are a happier nation—which rests on the flimsiest empirical evidence. Instead, I will focus on the alleged correlation and even causation between grammar and “being able to think about what didn’t really happen”. While I have not had a chance to discuss with any Vietnamese speakers whether they can imagine (“think about”) entities and events that do not have a basis in reality, I imagine they can. It is a well-established design feature of human language, called “displacement” that we can talk about things that are not present in the immediate reality, the “here and now”. We can talk about things that happened in the past, even remote past we could not have witnessed, about imaginary events (“fiction”), and creatures like Santa Claus and the unicorn. Animals, in contrast, cannot. I would be much surprised if Vietnamese was shown to lack this core property of human language. What is more, Tran himself reveals that perhaps the Vietnamese are not as unable to think about the unreal as he claims when he talks about his parents reaction to his remarks about what “could have” or “should have” happened. His father’s reaction is “we don’t talk about this, why waste time talking about what didn’t happen”. If he truly could not fathom what didn’t actually happen, his reaction should have been more along the lines of “I have no idea what you are talking about, son!”. Imagine explaining to a native of an Amazonian tribe who has never seen a computer how anti-virus software works and what it is for. I suspect you will get a puzzled stare, but not the sort of reaction Tran’s father gave him to the “coulda/shoulda” statements.

The difference between English- and Vietnamese-speakers is not so much of what their language allows them to express—or even worse, to comprehend—but of what the corresponding cultures tolerate. Compare Tran’s story to the following. We Russians do not talk about what happens when a person talked to (or talked about) dies, who would inherit their property, or how they might wish to be buried. To ask a Russian-speaking person what they think their spouse might live on if they pass away first is insulting, as is inquiring whether they would like to be cremated. If one raises a topic such as this, a typical reaction might be “we don’t talk about this” or “why waste time talking about what happens when a person dies, we should better expend our energy living well while we can”. One could even spin a story how not having such morbid conversations might make a whole nation happier. Conversely, abstaining from such conversation might be seen as ridiculous, even backwards, in a society obsessed with legalities such as a will, a living trust, a power of attorney, and so on. Those reactions would be merely cultural takes, themselves informed by multiculturalism (“all cultures are great, even the decidedly odd ones”) or ethnocentrism (“other cultures are bizarre, but not ours”). One would hardly talk about the gap in what the Russians talk about as being due to a gap in the grammar of their language—of lack of a grammatical “mortative”. There is no such thing, to the best of my knowledge: no language seems to have a special grammatical category dedicated to expressing after-death circumstances.*

The Vietnamese situation, as described by Tran, is very similar, except that the grammatical culprit supposedly present in English and absent in Vietnamese, the subjunctive, does exist. The only problem is that English does not really have a subjunctive, in the same sense that French, Armenian, or Russian do. Subjunctive mood is usually defined as a set of distinct verbal forms with a certain type of meaning prototypically used in subordinate clauses. The meaning associated with the subjunctive can be described, as the Wikipedia article on the subject does, as “various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred”. An alternative description is “non-committal to the truth value of the clause”. For example, in the following French near-minimal pair, the indicative vient expresses the speaker’s certainty that “he” will come, whereas the subjunctive vienne expresses the speaker’s uncertainty, or a mere possibility, that “he” shows up.

Je suis sûr qu’il vient.                     [indicative]

Je ne suis pas sûr qu’il vienne.   [subjunctive]

 

Optative

Exactly how to define the meaning associated with the subjunctive mood remains a topic of some debate among linguists, especially when different languages are considered. As the WALS chapter on the optative written by Nina Dobrushina, Johan van der Auwera, and Valentin Goussev (see map on the left) states:

“the notion of subjunctive is itself a problematic notion. One can choose to define it as a mood that is typical for subordinate clauses, or at least some subtypes, or one can associate it with non-actuality and thereby bring it closer to notions like “irrealis” and “potentialis”.”

But meaning alone does not a subjunctive make; grammatical distinctiveness is crucial. Languages are said to have subjunctive as a grammatical category when they have morphological or syntactic means dedicated especially to expressing the “subjunctive meaning” (however vaguely defined at this point). As can be seen from the French example above, subjunctive is a morphological category in this language. Verbs have a distinctive form—in fact, a set of distinct forms—associated with the subjunctive. Compare the following:

  indicative subjunctive
‘be’ il est qu’il soit
‘need’ il fait qu’il fasse
‘go’ il va qu’il aille
‘know’ il sait qu’il sache

 

Moreover, French distinguishes four subjunctive tenses: present, past, imperfect, and plus-que-parfait, as well as the usual six agreement forms for each. For the regular verbs, such as aimer ‘to love’, some of the present subjunctive forms are identical to the corresponding present indicative (e.g. indicative present il aime ‘he loves’ vs. subjunctive present qu’il aime), but other forms in the indicative and subjunctive present tense paradigms are distinctive: for example, indicative present nous aimons ‘we love’ vs. subjunctive present que nous aimions). The other tenses of the indicative and subjunctive are similarly distinctive: compare, for example, the indicative imperfect il aimait ‘he loved’ and the subjunctive imperfect qu’il aimât.

Similarly, subjunctive is a distinctive morphological category in Eastern Armenian; the following example is from the WALS chapter referenced above:

Eastern Armenian

Du oɣĵ mnas, aɣĵik-s.
you well remain.SUBJ.FUT.2SG daughter-POSS
‘I wish you good health, daughter.’

 

In other languages, the subjunctive may be formed not by morphological means, but by a separate subjunctive particle. For instance, one might analyze the Russian particle by as a subjunctive marker, although its meanings is only partially correlated with the “subjunctive meaning”, as discussed above: it is more properly analyzed as a counterfactual marker (but note that Tran subsumes the counterfactual meaning under his notion of “subjunctive”).

Russian

Esli by on vernulsja, ja by ušla.
if COUNTERFACTUAL he return.PAST I COUNTERFACTUAL leave.PAST
‘If he returned, I would have left.’

 

Let’s consider English now. Although English has several constructions that express “various states of unreality such as wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred”, as in Wikipedia’s definition of subjunctive, none of them employ distinctive verbal forms. In general, English is relatively poor in verbal forms, which can be counted on the fingers of one hand: a regular verb such as play has only four forms (play, plays, played, playing), whereas some irregular verbs sport five (eat, eats, ate, eaten, eating). These forms can be used together with auxiliaries have and be to form composite tenses (e.g. have been eating vs. have been eaten). Moreover, English speakers also have to make do with these forms to express not only the various tenses of the indicative mood, but also the imperative (Eat your veggies!), the conditional (If you eat spinach, I will eat it too), and the “subjunctive”, or more properly the counterfactual (If he had eaten spinach, I would have eaten it too).

The only English verb that seems to have a semblance of a distinctive “subjunctive” (read “counterfactual”) paradigm is the highly irregular verb be: compare the indicative past tense Back in my country, I was a rich man vs. the “subjunctive” If I were a rich man… However, even for the verb be the “subjunctive” is non-distinctive; it is simply the “repurposed” plural indicative past tense form, as in Back in their country, they were a rich couple.

Ultimately, English lacks a distinctive subjunctive paradigm for either regular or irregular verbs and hence lacks subjunctive as a grammatical category. But that grammatical gap does not mean that English lacks ways of talking about “subjunctive meanings”. Instead of having a dedicated grammatical form (in the form of a bound or free morpheme) for subjunctive, English co-opts other verbal forms, typically in combination with auxiliaries or modal verbs, the infamous “shoulda”, “woulda”, “coulda”. But rather than being dedicated subjunctive markers, these modals are associated with a different range of meanings (and can be used equally well in matrix and subordinate clauses).

deictic contrastsThe difference between having a certain grammatical category and being able to talk about the corresponding meaning in some other way (typically, through lexical means) can be illustrated by an example from a different domain, namely distance contrasts in deictic expressions. In English we have a two-way distinction between this and that (as well as between here and there, now and then). These demonstratives “indicate the relative distance of a referent in the speech situation vis-à-vis the deictic center … roughly equivalent to the speaker’s location at the time of the utterance”, according to the definition by Holger Diessel in the WALS chapter 41. Some other languages have a three- (or even four-) way contrasts. For example, Noon, a Niger-Congo language spoken in Senegal, distinguishes between kaan-fii ‘the house (near me)’, kaan-fum ‘the house (near you)’, and kaan-faa ‘the house (over there)’.** More importantly for the present discussion, the Noon distinction is grammatical while the English one is lexical. To appreciate the grammatical nature of this distinction in Noon, consider how its speaker would say ‘the black dog’. There are three ways to say this in Noon, depending on how far the said dog is (we’ll ignore the agreement prefix fi- on the adjective for the purposes of this post):

baay-fii fi-suus-fii ‘the black dog (near me)’

baay-fum fi-suus-fum ‘the black dog (near you)’

baay-faa fi-suus-faa ‘the black dog (over there)’

Note that the adjective is marked with the same deictic distance marker as the noun: they match. Mismatching deictic distance markers in a noun phrase is ungrammatical in Noon. One cannot say *baay-faa fi-suus-fii or *baay-fii fi-suus-fum and so on. Deictic distance is thus relevant to the grammar of the language, particularly to its “concord” (or “agreement”) system. The adjective must agree with the noun it modifies in noun class and number—and deictic distance (if definite). Moreover, a definite noun phrase cannot be left vague as to the deictic distance. In contrast, the English the black dog is vague: is it a dog near me, near you, or over there that we are talking about? It can be either. Nor is the choice between this and that, when made, relevant to any other grammatical phenomenon, such as agreement. And yet, although English lacks the grammatical category of deictic distance, its speakers can still talk about the notion—not to mention understand that some objects are right here and others are far away.

_____________

*Apparently, in Algonquian and Iroquoian languages there exists a “decessive” suffix, which you attach to a noun designating a human being if and only if this human being is dead. A suffix also called “decessive” exists also in Tlingit (Eyak-Athabaskan), but in that language it is used invariably to “describe states holding in the past but no longer holding at present” (Cable 2012), for example in the translation of ‘When I was a kid, I used to be short. But now I’m tall.’

** Noon examples are from a talk given by Nico Baier of UC Berkeley at Stanford Linguistics Department on October 13, 2014.

 


Related Posts

Subscribe For Updates

We would love to have you back on Languages Of The World in the future. If you would like to receive updates of our newest posts, feel free to do so using any of your favorite methods below:

      

Tags

  • John Cowan

    A sufficient response to Tran, I think, is that an army that could not make contingency plans could hardly have won its war.

    I must disagree, however, that because English no longer has a morphological subjunctive that it has no grammatical subjunctive at all. The use of were for was in contrary to fact conditionals applies to that one verb alone, and can reasonably now be called an idiom, though it descends from the historic past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II in German). Furthermore, it is an optional idiom: every English speaker can as well say if I was a rich man as well as if I were a rich man, though if they write was for publication, it will probably be changed to were.

    However, the use of the plain form rather than the 3rd person singular present form in mandative clauses is still living in English; it descends from the historic present subjunctive (Konjunktiv I in German). Here’s an example: ” Mr. Romney demanded that Mr Gingrich also release consulting contracts he struck with government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac.” This use of release is grammatically required; one can replace it with should release (with unstressed should; stressed should would be semantically different) but not with releases.

    While the use of the mandative subjunctive is mostly dictated by the verb, some verbs can generate minimal pairs. “I insist that Martha tell the truth about John” is a strong command to Martha via a third party, but “I insist that Martha tells the truth about John” is a strong claim about Martha’s truthfulness in this respect.

    It must also be said that while the mandative subjunctive is still strong in American English, in British English it has mostly been replaced by the form with unstressed should. Investigation shows that when British newspapers try to use the mandative, they often get it wrong and use the indicative instead.

    • Thank you for your comment, John. I still don’t think that the use of non-agreeing form for 3rd singular is a dedicated subjunctive, but I suppose one could analyze it as such. (Also, this kind of subjunctive isn’t part of my English — I must be British 😉

  • nominalize

    The main reason why it’s difficult to come up with a core meaning for subjunctive is the fact that the label, devised to account for a particular language (and perhaps its descendants) gets applied to all sorts of things in other languages that might not even be the same phenomenon. That is to say, there probably is no such thing as the `subjunctive mood.’ We took a term used to describe Classical Latin, where, admittedly, the usage is relatively clear… but even there, the conditions described are sufficient for the subjunctive, but not necessary.

    For what it’s worth, even the Romans didn’t call it the subjunctive… Aelius Donatus, whose Latin grammar Ars grammatica was the standard textbook for over a thousand years (!), called it the conjunctive mood (coniunctivus modus). And even he didn’t bother going into its meaning.

    • Thank you for the comment, nominalize! Well, there is some meaning to the subjunctive mood (aka the grammatical form in the languages that have). But the point is that you don’t have to have a special grammatical form in order to be able to talk about the meaning…

  • Ilya Zlatanov

    “The point is that you don’t have to have a special grammatical form in order to be able to
    talk about the meaning”. I completely agree.

    In the remote parts of the Rhodopes, where according to the legend lived Orpheus, there is an archaic dialect of Bulgarian. Like Noon, it has triple deictic system. E.g. ‘torba’ bag with the postpositive definite article could be torbaSA or torbaNA or torbaTA – depending on the close, distant or neutral position of the bag. Only the latter form survived in standard Bulgarian. If you misunderstand the locals, they can paraphrase the word as “that bag over there”. No communicative failure at all.

    And speaking about subjunctive, a rare grammatical mood exists in Bulgarian – so called renarrative (a.k.a. admirative or inferential mood). One of its functions is to express disagreement or irony. E.g. instead of calling someone fool, a possible choice is to use ‘Ti si bil mnogo umen!’ – “You are very smart!” Here the inferential form ‘si bil’ differs from the indicative ‘si’ – “you are”, and the rough translation is rather “you proved to be very smart”. But the ironic effect can be achieved using other grammatical means, say, employing plural instead of singular – ‘Ah kolko sme umni!’ – “Oh how we’re smart!” The communicative strategy resorts to various tactics. My point is that if something really distinguishes people, these are different cognitive and behavioral patterns.

  • Jesus Lopez

    Great article! I just heard the TED talk and was slightly amused by Tran’s suggestion of the alleged mastery of the subjunctive by the typical English speaker. This in addition to his apparent confusion of the subjunctive with the conditional, which was his sole talking point. As a native Spanish speaker I’m fairly familiar with the frequent stumbling faced by English speakers when piecing together a sentence requiring the subjunctive. They might say “espero que viene” instead of “espero que venga” (I hope he comes). I believe English resorts to different methods when Spanish would use the subjunctive.

    ¿Quieres que _venga_?
    Infinitive: Do you want me _to_come_?

    Espero que _venga_
    Present Indicative: I hope _he_comes_

    No _vengas_
    Present Imperative: Don’t come

    It is only in a few cases such as the conditional use that English does indeed use a different, albeit reused, verb form (If I were rich, I would…). Couldn’t this make a good case to consider the subjunctive a vestigial feature of English, if at all?

    • Thanks, Jesus. Yes, I agree that subjunctive in English is vestigial, if that. Thank you for sharing the information on Spanish. If Tran were right, Spaniards would have to be even more depressed and unhappy than the English — which I don’t think they are at all! 🙂

  • King Danny

    Ok, Ok! I know Santa’s not real – but Unicorns?