5) The Category of Mood.

The category of mood expresses the relations between the action and reality from the speaker’s point of view. He can treat it as real, unreal, probable or as a kind of inducement. Hence, we traditionally differentiate 3 principal types of mood in English: the indicative, the imperative and the oblique moods. The number and types of concrete mood forms can vary with different authors, because of the variety of verb forms, their homonymy on the plane of expression and difference on the plane of content.

The indicative moodpresents an action or event as a real fact from the grammatical point of view. The verb in this mood form strictly distinguishes the tense category, because it names actions taking place in the objective time: present, past or future.

The imperative mood expresses an inducement, addressed by the speaker to the addressee. The peculiarity of this mood-form is that it does not distinguish tense, aspect and voice categories. It is used only in actual intercourse and so it coincides with the moment of speaking. Hence, it always has the form of the present tense.

e.g. Stay here! Don’t go there.

However, taking into consideration the meaning of the imperative mood, we can also refer to its field some interrogative sentences which actually express not a question, but a request or a mild command. The predicate verb-form in such sentences coincides with the indicative mood in such cases.

e.g. Will you open the door? – mild command.

Shall I do it now?

Modal verbs with an infinitive can be used in the imperative mood to express a request, a permission, a prohibition or an order.

e.g. You may go now.

You mustn’t stay here too long.

You are to come at ten.

Some authors speak of the word combination with “let” as an analytical form of the Imperative Mood. Semantically such constructions can express an inducement. This inducement is addressed to the 1^st person or to the 3^rd person (Let me stay, let him stay) and in the last case it is not direct. When treating this construction with “let” as an analytical form of the Imperative Mood, the component “let” is treated as an auxiliary element. It is true that in some cases “let” happens to be considerably devoid of its lexical meaning.

e.g. Let’s do it now! Let him stay here!

However, it is difficult to agree to the idea that constructions with “let” are analytical forms of the Imperative Mood. We can give the following arguments:

1. The pronoun or noun is an object to “let” and so there are syntactic relations between the noun and pronoun what is foreign to analytical forms.

2. We can find secondary predicative relations between the noun or pronoun and the infinitive which follows it, thus making up a CO construction, what is foreign to analytical forms. E.g. Let me help you.

3. The component “let” can hardly be a pure auxiliary element, as in negative and interrogative forms it takes an auxiliary itself. In addition to that, when transformed into a declarative sentence it becomes the predicate and takes a subject. Hence, the prn or noun after “let” can’t be the subject of “let” as some authors think.

e.g. Will you let me do it? Don’t let us stay here. She never lets me stay there after ten.

(aux) (aux) (subject) (predicate)

So the word combinations with “let” can be treated as a means of expressing the meaning of the Imperative Mood, but it is not an analytical form.

The imperative mood is formed by the infinitive without the particle “to”, but unlike the infinitive it takes the auxiliary in the negative and interrogative forms:

e.g. Don’t forget it. I want not to forget it.

When treating Oblique Moods we can say that it is one of disputable questions in English grammar. Different authors speak of different types and number of oblique moods. Oblique moods denote unreal or problematic actions and so they can’t express objective time and do not distinguish tense-forms like the Indicative Mood. Oblique Moods denote only relative time relations, that is simultaneity and futurity as one time-plane and priority as the other time-plane.

Oblique moods have a range of forms including:

1. Synthetic forms which coincide with the forms of the indicative mood:

e.g. I wish he came. It’s time he were there.

2) Analytical forms which coincide with the forms of the Indicative Mood or with free word-combinations (a modal verb + an infinitive).

e.g. I wish he had done it. I suggest that he should do it.

3) The form of the infinitive without the particle “to”:

e.g. I suggest that he stay a little longer. (Subjunctive I).

Phone me if he be ill.

Due to the variety of forms which express identical or nearly identical meanings, it is impossible to make up regular paradigms of Oblique Moods.

Hence, some authors take into consideration mostly the plane of content and distinguish a certain number of Oblique Moods, while other scholars pay more attention to the plane of expression and speak of some other kind of Oblique Moods.

The extreme points of view are expressed by Deutchbein who speaks of 16 moods in English and by Baihudarov who denies the existence of the morphological category of Mood with English verbs.

The most popular in grammar has become the system of moods put forward by Smirnitsky. He speaks of 6 moods:

• The Indicative mood;

• The imperative mood;

• Subjunctive I;

• Subjunctive II;

• The Conditional Mood;

• The suppositional Mood.

Though this system is not ideal it has its merit of being most known and popular with learners of English. The main drawbacks of this system are:

1. Subjunctive I and Suppositional Mood are differentiated mostly by their form, being identical in their meaning, e.g. It is necessary that he should be present there. It’s necessary that he be present there.

2. The term ‘the conditional Mood” is not quite appropriate, because this mood form is mostly used to express not the condition but the consequence, e.g. He would support (expresses consequence) me if he were (expresses condition) here now.

The Conditional Mood denotes an unreal action and it is built with the help of the auxiliary verbs “should” or “would” and a non-perfect infinitive to express simultaneity or futurity or a perfect infinitive to express priority. The conditional Mood is used in simple sentences with an implied condition or in the main clause of a complex conditional sentence.

e.g. If he were not busy, he would call on me. He would undoubtedly have joined us. But for the late hour I would go there. Do it now, otherwise you would be sorry to have wasted your time.

Subjunctive II denotes an unreal action. In its form it coincides with the Past Indicative not modified by the Perfect, when expressing priority. Subjunctive II is used in different subordinate clauses or sometimes in simple sentences with an implied consequence.

e.g. If only he were not so light-minded! It’s time he came. I wish he had paid some attention to it. She behaves as if she were not to blame. I’d rather you had followed the doctor’s advice. It is not as if she had never thought of it.

The Suppositional Mood and Subjunctive I denote a problematic action which is not contrary to reality. The Suppositional Mood is built with the help of the auxiliary verb “should” and the infinitive, while Subjunctive I coincides in its form with the infinitive without the particle “to”. They express the same meaning and differ only stylistically. Subjunctive I is more typical of American English and newspaper style.

e.g. Ring me up if he should arrive (arrive). It is necessary that everybody should be present there (be present). The suggestion is that you should take the flour at the meeting. She shut the window lest the child should catch a cold.

Taking into consideration the fact that the Oblique Mood forms coincide with the forms of the indicative mood, there arises the problem of their homonymy or polysemy. Many authors think that we deal with grammatical homonyms which coincide in their form but differ in their grammatical meaning.

Other scholars think that homonymy should be restricted only to the forms of the Suppositional Mood, on the one hand, and the word-combination “the modal verb “should” + an infinitive” on the other hand.

In all other cases they speak of polysemy, because the verb-forms have the same lexical meaning and are identical on the plane of expression. The difference in their grammatical meaning is brought about by the syntactic context.

e.g. He lived there (priority, past tense, indicative mood, a real action).

He said that he lived there (simultaneity, past tense, indicative mood, a real action).

If only he lived there! (simultaneity, SII present, an unreal action).

So it seems more logical to speak of contextual polysemy of verb-forms. Stressing the role of the syntactic context in differentiating mood-forms, we can put forward an idea that the category of mood is sooner not a morphological category but a contextual or syntactic category of the sentence.

We proceed from the fact that a verb-form by itself fails to identify Mood. It acquires the concrete Mood-idea only when used in a syntactic context, that is, in a sentence.