-2

On the one hand, we have a set of property values.  Among these are declarative, interrogative and imperative.  On the other hand, we have a separate set of property values.  These include indicative and subjunctive.  On the gripping hand, we have the label mode, which is generally used for either property. 

The properties seem distinct, if not quite orthogonal: 

We can do that.  -- declarative and indicative
We could do that.  -- declarative and subjunctive

Can we do that?  -- interrogative and indicative
Could we do that?  -- interrogative and subjunctive

Hey you, do that!  -- imperative, probably neither indicative nor subjunctive

Please understand that, in the context of this question, I don't care whether "can" is denotatively dynamic, alethic, or anything else.  I'm looking at mode as marked by grammar.  Or, alternately, I'm looking for some category other than mode that describes one set while ignoring the other. 

Do we have a way to label the separate sets?  We can see what distinguishes the interrogative from the declarative, as a given clause can employ no more than one of those modes.  What distinguishes the interrogative mode from the subjunctive mode, given that both modes can be employed by the same clause?

Edit:

The site Linguistic Girl proposes the label sentence purpose to describe that property of which declarative, interrogative and imperative are values.  Unfortunately, it also lists exclamatory as a purpose, despite the fact that whatever property it represents is clearly orthogonal to the rest.  The site K12 Reader gives no better label than sentence type to this same group of four.  The relevant Wikipedia page is titled sentence function. 

The moment we stumble across a tag question, we should immediately realize that it is not the sentence but the clause which has this property.  Still, function, type, purpose -- is this really the best we can do?

Gary Botnovcan
  • 1,999

1 Answers1

1

The best solution here is to refrain from regarding "declarative" and "interrogative" as moods. They might be types of epistemic modality in a broad sense (see http://www.glossary.sil.org/term/epistemic-modality ), but they are not grammatical moods. They are certainly not forms of inflection, nor do they have distinct modal verbs associated with them.

There are various schools of thought when it comes to "mood". ("Modality" often has an even wider set of meanings.)

Traditional grammars count the indicative, subjunctive, and imperative as English moods. Some count the infinitive as well.

The modal verbs, of course, are so named because they are generally used to express mood or modality in an even broader sense.

Huddleston and Pullum write in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language: "Mood is a matter of grammatical form, modality a matter of meaning. ... The main markers of mood in English are the modal auxiliaries can, may, must, will, shall, together with a few less central ones."

It is not conventional to refer to "could" as a subjunctive. The term "subjunctive" is generally reserved for certain verb forms used in mandative and optative expressions ("I asked that it be done"; "Long live the Queen"; "I wish she were here").

rjpond
  • 3,361
  • Ok, fine. So there's a property other than mode that encompass declarative, interrogative and imperative. I'm not surprised. I granted that possibility in my original posting. This might be an acceptable answer, if only you had included the name for what they are. I need something more than "it ain' mode 'cause mode's over thar". – Gary Botnovcan Sep 01 '17 at 19:36
  • As I said, there is no hard answer, as these terms have been used in various ways. I suggest that we use the term "grammatical mood" to describe the indicative/subjunctive/imperative nature of the verb in a clause, and the term "epistemic modality" to describe the declarative/interrogative/etc force of an utterance. – rjpond Sep 01 '17 at 20:03
  • Alas, "epistemic" doesn't fit anything on the table, for the same reason that "alethic" and "dynamic" don't. We're not talkin' 'bout semantic modality, just something marked in the grammar. The can/could distinction falls under morphology. The declarative/interrogative/imperative distinction falls under syntax. Also alas, "syntactic mode" and "inflectional mode" don't feel like they've brought us any closer to the heart of the question. Ah, well . . . – Gary Botnovcan Sep 01 '17 at 20:38
  • Well, judging by the down-votes on your question, most people either think your question is irrelevant or think you haven't explained it well. I tried to answer it, even if not to your satisfaction. I agree that often the interrogative nature of a sentence is made clear by its grammar, but I don't know why that should be considered modal; anyway, quite often a question has the identical grammatical form to a declaration ("Oh yes?", "You're OK then?") or an instruction takes the grammatical form of a question ("Could you step this way please, sir", as spoken by a security guard). – rjpond Sep 01 '17 at 20:47
  • Ah, well, we've got good labels for that. The locutionary act is distinct from the illocutionary act -- the guard's locutionary question represents his illocutionary order, and so the interrogative implies an imperative. And, further, I'm tempted to agree with you: the locutionary declarative/interrogative/imperative set of values, whatever property they may represent, deserves a different label than "mode". Your response is useful, as validation of my intuition if nothing else. It's just not an answer. I guess you've drawn the same blank I have. I know what it ain't. What is it? – Gary Botnovcan Sep 01 '17 at 21:09