Expressing the Same by the Different: The subjunctive vs the indicative in French (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, Volume 59)

Expressing the Same by the Different Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics (SFSL) Taking the broadest and ...

Author: Igor Dreer

42 downloads 739 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Expressing the Same by the Different

Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics (SFSL) Taking the broadest and most general definitions of the terms functional and structural, this series aims to present linguistic and interdisciplinary research that relates language structure — at any level of analysis from phonology to discourse — to broader functional considerations, whether cognitive, communicative, pragmatic or sociocultural. Preference will be given to studies that focus on data from actual discourse, whether speech, writing or other nonvocal medium. The series was formerly known as Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe (LLSEE).

Founding Editor

Honorary Editors

John Odmark

Eva Hajičová

Charles University

Petr Sgall

Charles University

General Editors Yishai Tobin

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Ellen Contini-Morava University of Virginia

Editorial Board Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald

Jim Miller

Joan Bybee

Marianne Mithun

Nicholas Evans

Lawrence J. Raphael

Victor A. Friedman

Olga Mišeska Tomić

Anatoly Liberman

Olga T. Yokoyama

La Trobe University

University of New Mexico University of Melbourne University of Chicago University of Minnesota

University of Auckland University of California, at Santa Barbara CUNY and Adelphi University Leiden University UCLA

James A. Matisoff

University of California, Berkeley

Volume 59 Expressing the Same by the Different. The subjunctive vs the indicative in French Igor Dreer

Expressing the Same by the Different The subjunctive vs the indicative in French

Igor Dreer Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dreer, Igor. Expressing the same by the different : the subjunctive vs the indicative in French / Igor Dreer. p. cm. (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, issn 0165-7712 ; v. 59) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. French language--Mood. 2. French language--Subjunctive. I. Title. PC2290.D74 2007 445'.6--dc22 2007022856 isbn 978 90 272 1568 0 (Hb; alk. paper)

© 2007 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Dedication

To my wife Marina for all her support and encouragement, for her belief in me, without which this book would not appear.

Table of contents

Acknowledgements List of tables List of figures

xi xiii xv

Preface 1. Theoretical background xvii 1.1 The inadequacy of functions, attributed to each mood xvii 1.2 The inadequacy of the government of French mood xxi 2. A systematic approach xxv

xvii

Part 1. The problem of French mood chapter 1 Sentence-oriented approaches 1.1 Syntactic approach 4 1.2 Generative approach 9 1.3 Functional approach 13 1.4 The functional approach of Martinet 23 1.5 Cognitive approach 26 1.6 Psycho-semantic approach 32 1.7 Logico-pragmatic approach 37 chapter 2 Sign-oriented approaches 2.1 Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian theory 44 2.2 Guillaumean theory 47 2.3 Summary and conclusions 48

3

43

Part 2. Columbia School theory chapter 3 The basic principles 3.1 The Columbia School definition of language 55 3.2 Invariant meaning versus contextual messages 57

55

viii Expressing the Same by the Different

3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

Meanings and signals in Columbia School theory 60 Relationships between signs in Columbia School theory 62 The communicative and human factors in Columbia School theory 65 Communicative strategies in Columbia School theory 69 Summary of the Columbia School principles 72

chapter 4 Hypothesis 4.1 The Occurrence System 75 4.2 Invariant meaning versus contextual messages 77 4.3 Meaningful contrast between the Subjunctive and the Indicative 78 4.4 Summary and conclusions 80

75

Part 3. “Micro-level” analysis chapter 5 Occurrence System and the encoder’s commitment 5.1 The certainty versus the uncertainty of an occurrence 86 5.2 Personalized versus depersonalized occurrences 113 5.3 The degree of the encoder’s attention, concentrated on the subject 121 chapter 6 Occurrence System and subjective comment 6.1 Explicit comments 130 6.2 Implicit comments 136 chapter 7 Occurrence System and negation 7.1 Explicit negation 148 7.2 Implicit negation 153 7.3 The uniqueness of an occurrence 159 7.4 Summary and conclusions 163

85

129

147

Part 4. “Macro-level” analysis chapter 8 “From sign to text” approach 8.1 Le Malentendu (The Misunderstanding) 168 8.2 Le revolver de Maigret 174

167

Table of contents

chapter 9 “From text to sign” approach 181 9.1 Antigone 182 9.2 L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être (The Unbearable Lightness of Being) 188 9.3 Summary and conclusions 196 Part 5. The Subjunctive moods: Diachronic analysis chapter 10 Previous explanations for the use of the Subjunctive forms and for their disfavoring 10.1 Sentence-oriented explanations 201 10.2 Sign-oriented explanation 205 chapter 11 The analysis of the general disfavoring of the Subjunctive 11.1 The losses of the Contemporary French Subjunctive 208 11.2 The loss of the Old French Subjunctive 213 chapter 12 The analysis of the disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive chapter 13 The Subjunctive moods in Old French: “Micro-level” analysis 13.1 The System of Relevance and the encoder’s concern 223 13.2 The System of Relevance and the possibility of an occurrence 227 chapter 14 The Subjunctive moods in Old French: “Macro-level” analysis chapter 15 The Subjunctive moods in Contemporary French: “Micro-level” analysis 15.1 The System of Relevance and the encoder’s concern 239 15.2 The System of Relevance and the possibility of an alternative 244 chapter 16 The Subjunctive moods in Contemporary French: “Macro-level” analysis 16.1 Les jeunes filles (The Girls) 249

201

207

217 223

231

239

249

ix


16.2 The disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive from speech and its appropriateness to writing 252 16.3 Summary and conclusions 253 Concluding remarks

255

List of references Corpus 266

259

Name index Subject index

269 271

Acknowledgements

I would like to greatly acknowledge Professor Yishai Tobin for his help, advice and encouragement as well as for having reminded me to be direct and explicit and to write the most essential, albeit obvious things. I would also like to acknowledge Lisa Rojman, my colleague and a native speaker of English, for proof reading and very helpful suggestions. I claim any errors of fact and judgment for myself only.

List of tables

Table 1

Correlation of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative in the subordinate clause with undifferentiated vs. differentiated antecedents in the main clause

Table 2

The distribution of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative for different non-referential expressions

Table 3

Correlation of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative in the subordinate clause with nonreferential vs. referential expressions in the main clause

Table 4

Correlation of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative in the subordinate clause with the indirect vs. the direct word order in the main clause

Table 5

Correlation of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative in the subordinate clause with negation vs. affirmation in the main clause

Table 6

The distribution of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative-Conditional following different superlative expressions

Table 7

From sign to text (Le Malentendu): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for different leitmotifs in the Act I

Table 8

From sign to text (Le Malentendu): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for the character of Jan for the first two Acts

Table 9

From sign to text (Le Malentendu): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for the character of Maria for the beginning vs. the end of the play

Table 10 From sign to text (Le revolver de Maigret): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for outset vs. outcome vs. epilogue Table 11 From text to sign (Antigone): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for major characters Table 12 From text to sign (L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for different parts of the text Table 13 The predominance of the Old French Subjunctive over the Contemporary French Subjunctive Table 14 The diachronic disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive Table 15 Correlation of the Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives with first vs. third person subjects Table 16 From sign to text (La chanson de Roland): Non-random distribution of the Subjunctive moods for positive vs. negative characters in laisses 1–79 Table 17 From sign to text (La chanson de Roland): Non-random distribution of the Subjunctive moods for descriptions vs. plot-battles in laisses 80–132

xiv Expressing the Same by the Different

Table 18 From sign to text (La chanson de Roland): Non-random distribution of the Subjunctive moods for descriptions vs. plot-battles in laisses 133–188 Table 19 From sign to text (La chanson de Roland): Non-random distribution of the Subjunctive moods for description vs. plot-battles in laisses 189–291 Table 20 Correlation of the Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives with first vs. third person subjects Table 21 From text to sign (Les jeunes filles): Non-random distribution for the girls vs. Pierre Costals

List of figures

Figure 1

The “seesaw” relationship of De Boer

Figure 2

The Indicative versus the Subjunctive within the Occurrence System in French

Figure 3

Meaningful opposition of Occurrence versus Alternative to Occurrence within the Occurrence System

Figure 4

The System of Differentiation for nouns in French

Figure 5

The four strategies of the correlation of the Occurrence System and the Focus System in interrogative sentences

Figure 6

“From sign to text” approach

Figure 7

“From text to sign” approach

Figure 8

The Indicative vs. the Subjunctive within the Old French Occurrence System

Figure 9

The Indicative vs. the Subjunctive within the Contemporary French Occurrence System

Figure 10

Diachronic meaningful contrast of two Subjunctive meanings: Occurrence Questioned vs. Alternative

Figure 11

The Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives within the French System of Relevance

Figure 12

The Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives within the Old French Occurrence-Relevance interlock

Figure 13

The Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives within the Contemporary French Occurrence-Relevance interlock

Preface

1.

Theoretical background

Mood in the French verb has been the object of a large number of diverse studies, undertaken by advocates of various theories. These analyses mostly consist of lists of the many and varied functions of the French Indicative and Subjunctive or the linguistic environments that supposedly govern the use of these moods. Based on these lists, the analyses describe the native speakers’ choice of one mood over the other. However, the data show the inadequacy of these traditional (hereafter, sentence-oriented) studies in explaining the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. The functions attributed to each mood are imprecise or overlap. Linguistic environments do not always govern an expected mood.

1.1 The inadequacy of functions, attributed to each mood There is not a one-to-one connection between form and function: “a single form may perform a variety of functions and a single function may be expressed by a multiplicity of forms” (Contini-Morava 1983: 31). Therefore, in order to explain the diverse use of the French Indicative and Subjunctive, each mood has been attributed a set of functions. According to this point of view, the major function of the Indicative in French is to express the certain and the real, to state a fact. This can be contrasted with the Subjunctive, whose major function is to express the doubtful or the unreal, including desires, emotions. Par opposition à l’indicatif, qui est le mode du fait posé comme tel, le subjonctif est le mode de ce qui est seulement pensé, senti ou voulu. Il traduit essentiellement un mouvement de l’âme. (Mauger 1968 : 252)

. For the detailed survey of the studies of French mood, cf. Hunnius (1976), Moignet (1959), Schifko (1967). . For the analysis of the suffixes to which the terms the French Subjunctive and the French Indicative refer, see Soutet (2000: 13–28). Cellard (1996: 9–14) analyzes as well the forms of what the French Subjunctive is.

xviii Expressing the Same by the Different

‘In contrast with the Indicative, which is the mood of the stated fact, the Subjunctive is the mood of what is only thought, felt or wanted. It expresses mainly an emotional impulse.’

Examples (1)–(2), taken from the novel Les Caves du Vatican ‘The Vatican Cellars’ by Gide (1975) [1922], illustrate the major functions of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. Example (1) shows the use of the Indicative as conveying a simple sequence of facts: 1) Lafcadio, an illegitimate son of the old Count de Baraglioul, inherits a fortune and 2) he does not want to show that he has become rich, i.e. he wants to remain true to himself. (1) Après que, par l’intermédiaire de Julius et l’assistance du notaire, Lafcadio fut (I) entré en possession des quarante mille livres de rente que feu le comte Juste-Agénor de Baraglioul lui laissait, son grand souci fut de n’en laisser rien paraître. (Gide 1975 [1922] : 185) ‘After Lafcadio, with the solicitor’s help – Julius acting as intermediary – had (I) come [fut entré] into the 40,000 francs a year left him by the late Count Juste-Agénor de Baraglioul, his chief concern was to let no signs of it appear.’ (Gide 1952: 181)

Example (2) shows the use of the Subjunctive to convey a sequence of events that are required, but have not yet been realized and are, therefore, uncertain. In this example, Julius is speaking about how he will have to organize the funeral of his murdered brother-in-law whose name is still unpublished. (2) En deuil déjà, de ce côté du moins (j’entends: celui du vêtement), je suis tranquille; mais vous comprenez que, sitôt divulgué le nom de la victime, il faudra que j’avertisse (S) toute ma famille, que j’envoie (S) des dépêches, que j’écrive (S) des lettres, que je m’occupe (S) des faire-parts, de l’inhumation, que j’aille (S) à Naples réclamer le corps, que... (Gide 1975 [1922] : 209) ‘I’m mourning already, so from that point of view (as regards the dress question, I mean) there’s no need to bother; but you see, as soon as the victim’s name is published, I shall have to communicate (S) [avertisse] with the family, send (S) [envoie] telegrams, write (S) [écrive] letters, make (S) [m’occupe] arrangements for the funeral, go (S) [aille] to Naples to fetch the body…’ (Gide 1952: 207)

. In all the examples, the Subjunctive is designated as (S), and the Indicative as (I). All the capitalized or italicized forms are mine. For clarity sake, I also quote the French original in square brackets in English translations because English and French very often express the same idea in different ways.

Preface xix

The functions, illustrated by examples (1) and (2), would explain the diversity of the use of French mood if they were mutually exclusive. However, as examples (3)–(8) show, the functions of the Indicative and the Subjunctive overlap. Examples (3)–(5) present the supposedly inconsistent use of the Indicative that fulfils the functions of the Subjunctive. Example (3), taken from the short story L’Huissier ‘The Bailiff ’ by Aymé (1943), is an instance of the use of the Indicative to express the subject’s desire to perform an action. In this example, a deceased bailiff complains to God about Saint Peter who decides to send him to hell because he has confiscated the property of a widow and an orphan. Though example (3) deals with the subject’s desire, it is expressed not by the Subjunctive, but by the Indicative. (3) Saint Pierre m’impute les larmes de la veuve et de l’orphelin que j’ai fait couler dans l’exercice de ma charge d’huissier, et il dispose que ces larmes brûlantes seront (I) l’instrument de mon supplice éternel. (Aymé 1943 : 233) ‘Saint Peter attributes to me the tears of the widow and the orphan which I caused to be shed while executing my bailiff ’s duties and he stipulates that these burning tears would (I) be [seront] the tool of my eternal torment.’

Examples (4)–(5) are instances of the use of the Indicative to express the subject’s feelings. Example (4), collected by Boysen (1971) from the French newspaper Le Monde (10.5.1966), is an instance of the use of the Indicative to express the subject’s fear with the non-referential construction il est à craindre que ‘one should be afraid that’. It is difficult to judge this instance of the Indicative because Boysen does not provide the context in which example (4) has been used. However, according to Mauger (1968: 254), the Indicative tends to be used after il est à craindre que in Contemporary French, though the Subjunctive is still preferred in this context. (4) […] mais il est à craindre que ce sera (I) tout. (Le Monde 10.5.1966, p. 20, col. 3 cit. in Boysen 1971 : 28) ‘But one should be afraid that it may (I) be [sera] all over.’

Example (5) has been taken from the French newspaper Libération (30–31.10.99). It is an instance of the use of the Indicative to express the subject’s hope as to whether an action will be performed properly. A Commissioner in the European Union expresses his hope that the French authorities will agree with the decision of the Scientific Committee to remove the embargo on British beef. Though example (5) deals with the subject’s feelings, they are expressed not by the Subjunctive, but by the Indicative.

xx Expressing the Same by the Different

(5) “J’espère que l’on arrivera (I) à un accord à l’amiable”, a-t-il ajouté. (Libération, 30–31 octobre 1999, p. 8) ‘“I hope that we will (I) reach [arrivera] an amicable agreement”, he added.’

The set of examples (6)–(8) represents the opposite inconsistency: the use of the Subjunctive performing the function of the Indicative to present facts. In example (6), taken from the French newspaper Libération (30–31.10.99), a fact is introduced by the expression le fait que ‘the fact that’. This example is an advertisement of the semi-final matches of the rugby world championship in which the French team will be the only representative from the Northern Hemisphere. Though example (6) presents the participation of France as a fact, it is expressed not by the Indicative, but by the Subjunctive. (6) Ce week-end, le fait que la France soit (S) la seule équipe à représenter l’hémisphère Nord face aux trois équipes de l’hémisphère Sud n’a rien changé. Ceux qui seront « canalisés » verront le match au sommet entre l’Afrique du Sud et l’Australie sur Canal+ […] (Libération, 30–31 octobre 1999, p. 49) ‘This weekend, in spite of the fact that France may (S) be [soit] the only team that will represent the Northern Hemisphere against three teams from the Southern Hemisphere, nothing will change. The subscribers of the Canal+ will see the top match between the South Africa and Australia…’

Example (7) has been taken from L’Arrache-Cœur ‘Heartsnatcher’, one of the most inventive novels by Vian (1962). In this example, a fact is introduced by the nonreferential construction il est exact que ‘it is right that’. Jacquemort shows to Angel his identity card where it is written that Jacquemort was born last year and that he is literally “empty from his birth”. Angel, however, emphasizes his skepticism with the Subjunctive, implying alternatively that what is written in the identity card might be a mistake. Though example (7) presents the information written in the identity card as a fact, it is expressed not by the Indicative, but by the Subjunctive. (7) […] Je suis né l’année dernière, tel que vous me voyez devant vous. Regardez ma carte d’identité. […] Ça se complète très bien, dit Angel. Il est exact que ce soit (S) écrit, mais ce qui est écrit est une erreur. (Vian 1962 : 28-29) ‘“[…] I was born last year just as you see me. Look at my identity card.”

. Vian’s linguistic innovation consists in literalization of clichés. In this example, Vian apparently refers to the French expression ne pas être né de la dernière pluie ‘not to have been born yesterday’, meaning to be well-informed or experienced.

Preface xxi

“[…] One thing completes the other very well”, said Angel. “It’s right that this is (S) [soit] written, but what is written is a mistake.”’

In example (8), taken from the Internet site of the French newspaper Le Monde, the Subjunctive is used after the verb nier ‘to deny’ to show the disagreement of the subject with a fact. In this example, Anne Tristan condemns the demagogy of the National Front, a French racist and chauvinistic party, which denies the genocide of Jews and Gypsies by the Nazis during World War II. Example (8) presents the murder of Jews and Gypsies as a fact, though denied, which is expressed not by the Indicative, but by the Subjunctive. (8) “Cela fait 20 ans que le FN progresse et se banalise, alors que c’est un parti qui prône l’exclusion d’une partie de l’humanité, qui nie qu’il y ait (S) eu des génocides contre les Juifs et les Tziganes, qui est soutenu par le parti de l’ancien président yougoslave Slobodan Milosevic, actuellement jugé par la justice internationale pour avoir organisé la purification ethnique de son pays”, a énuméré Anne Tristan. (Le Monde, http://www.lemonde.fr/, Le Pen évoque des « ordres » […], 15.02.04) ‘“The National Front has progressed and has become popular for 20 years. However, this party advocates the expulsion of a part of humanity. It denies that genocide was (S) perpetrated [ait eu] against Jews and Gypsies. It is supported by the party of the former president of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, currently being tried by the international court for having organized ethnic purges in his country”, enumerated Anne Tristan.’

Examples (3)–(8) show that the functions attributed to the Indicative and the Subjunctive overlap, and therefore do not account for the use of these moods in French.

1.2 The inadequacy of the government of French mood It has often been suggested that there are linguistic environments that govern either the Indicative or the Subjunctive (cf. Börjeson 1966; Boysen 1971; Gross 1978, 1986; Lalaire 1998). The so-called exceptions from the required use are viewed as a result of the speaker’s education and his/her standards of speech, age or sex. Beyond these extra-/socio-linguistic reasons, the exceptions to the rules of government can be purely linguistic ones. Example (9), recorded by Poplack (1992) in Canada, is an instance of the inconsistent use of the Indicative, introduced by the impersonal construction il faut ‘it is necessary’. This expression should obligatorily govern the Subjunctive, as in example (2).

xxii Expressing the Same by the Different

(9) Ça veut pas dire faut qu’on est (I) obligés de payer pour, nous-autres. (Poplack 1992 : 241) ‘It doesn’t mean we have to be (I) [est] forced to pay for it.’ (ibid)

While one may argue that example (9) has been taken from overseas French, Cohen (1965: 119, 133) noted the Indicative following il faut from a Breton, i.e. in Continental French. (10) Il faut que ça tient (I) quand même un peu. (Cohen 1965: 133) ‘It has to stand (I) [tient] a little.’

It could be said that both examples (9) and (10) represent two dialects that use the Indicative in the linguistic environment of the Subjunctive. However, Van der Molen (1923: 75) noted the same use of the Indicative in the suburbs of Paris. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to attribute the Indicative following il faut to a provincial use. Neither Poplack (1992) nor Cohen (1965) provides a wider context from which one could infer the pragmatic implication of the use of the Indicative. My opinion is that the Indicative is used in examples (9)–(10) to imply the encoder’s (speaker’s or writer’s) commitment to the occurrence of the events. The opposite inconsistency is the use of the Subjunctive in the linguistic environment that traditionally governs the Indicative. In example (11), the Subjunctive follows the construction après que ‘after’ that should obligatorily require the Indicative, as in example (1). (11) on peut y aller tout de suite après qu’il ait (S) mangé. (Canut & Ledegen 1998 : 30) ‘We can go there just after he eats (S) [ait mangé].’

One may argue that example (11) has been taken from spoken (informal) French that uses the Subjunctive in the linguistic environment of the Indicative. However, Cohen (1965), Wilmet (1969, 1976), Wunderli (1976) have provided many examples from written French where the Subjunctive follows après que. Compare the previous example with example (12), noted by Cohen (1965) in Échos du monde of September 1951: (12) La campagne électorale s’est ouverte, après qu’un long débat se soit (S) poursuivi entre… (Cohen 1965 : 224) ‘The election campaign opened after a long debate (S) [se soit poursuivi] between […]’

Examples (13)–(14) are counterexamples of the use of the Subjunctive after après que. They have been taken from the same novel as example (1), Les Caves du Vatican ‘The Vatican Cellars’ by Gide (1975) [1922]. In all three examples, après que

Preface xxiii

introduces a clause stating a fact. However, in example (1), après que is followed by the Indicative, whereas in examples (13) and (14), the fact is expressed by the Subjunctive. (13) Il est vrai que sur ces cinquante mille francs, quarante étaient prêtés par Fleurissoire, prélevés sur la dot d’Arnica, remboursables en dix ans, avec un intérêt cumulatif de 4½% – […] ce qui mettait la petite fortune d’Amédée à l’abri des grands risques que cette entreprise ne pouvait manquer de courir. Les Blafafoires, par contre, apportaient l’appui de leurs relations et de celles des Baraglioul, c’est-à-dire, après que le Carton-Romain eût (S) fait ses preuves, la protection de maints membres influents du clergé […] (Gide 1975 [1922] : 115) ‘It is true that of these fifty thousand, forty were advanced by Fleurissoire out of Arnica’s marriage portion; the sum was repayable in ten years with compound interest at 4½ per cent. – […] Amédée’s small fortune was thus guaranteed from the risks which such an undertaking must necessarily incur. The Blafafoires, on their side, brought as an asset their family connexions and those of the Baragliouls, which meant, when once Roman Plaster had (S) proved [eût fait] its reliability, the patronage of several influential members of the clergy […]’ (Gide 1952: 109)

It could be argued that example (13) represents the stylistic use of the Subjunctive emphasizing uncertainty because the undertaking Roman Plaster, though having proved its reliability, was not certain and incurred great risks. Example (14) from the same novel shows even more forcefully that the rules of government are at variance with the real use of French mood. In this example, après que presents the sequence of pure facts: (1) a pupil, who was good at book-learning, displayed his contempt for another pupil, named Protos, (2) who began working hard and became the best in the class. (14) Protos marquait un grand mépris pour ce que nous enseignaient nos maîtres; pourtant, après qu’un de nos forts-en-thèmes, qu’il détestait, lui eût (S) dit un jour : il est commode de dédaigner ce dont on ne serait pas capable […], Protos se pique, s’entêta quinze jours durant, fit si bien qu’à la composition qui suivit il passe par-dessus la tête de l’autre ! à la grande stupeur de nous tous. Je devrais dire : d’eux tous. Quant à moi je tenais Protos en considération trop haute pour que cela pût beaucoup m’étonner. (Gide 1975 [1922] : 81) ‘Protos showed the greatest contempt for everything the masters taught us; but one day, when one of the fellows who was good at book-learning and whom he detested, said (S) [eût dit] to him: ‘It’s all very fine to despise what you can’t do’ […], Protos got his back up, worked hard for a fortnight and to such purpose that at the next Greek composition class he went up over

xxiv Expressing the Same by the Different

the other fellows’ heads and took the first place to the utter amazement of us all – of them [translator’s italics] all, I should say. As for me, I had too high an opinion of Protos to be much astonished. (Gide 1952: 74)

I contend that the use of the Subjunctive in examples (11)–(14) implies that a fact, perceived in a sequence of events, is or may be contrary to the encoder’s expectations. This is especially evident from the wider context of examples (13)–(14). In example (13), the possible alternative to the encoder’s expectations derives from the risk that the undertaking of Roman Plaster might not prove its reliability. In example (14), the use of the Subjunctive shows that the narrator distances himself from other pupils, implying alternatively, that they should have a high opinion of Protos. These examples show not so much the inconsistency of the use of the Subjunctive, as the inconsistency of the rules which govern the Subjunctive. The inadequacy of the government of French mood is not only in the fact that the Indicative is used where one would expect the Subjunctive and vice versa, but also in minimal pairs where the same linguistic environment governs both the Indicative and the Subjunctive, as in the set of examples (15)–(18): (15) Je ne crois pas qu’il est (I) malade. ‘I don’t think he is (I) [est] sick.’ (16) Je ne crois pas qu’il soit (S) malade. ‘I don’t think he may (S) be [soit] sick.’ (17) Il n’y a qu’un remède qui peut (I) le guérir. ‘There is only one remedy that can (I) [peut] cure him.’ (18) Il n’y a qu’un remède qui puisse (S) le guérir. ‘There is only one remedy that may (S) [puisse] cure him.’

Harmer (1954: 209–215, 220–224) argues that such minimal pairs are illogical. The approach, advocated in this volume, shows that this claim as well as the very notion of government are unfounded because they fail to explain the use of French mood in examples like (9)–(18). Instead of these sentence-oriented approaches, I follow a systematic approach, based on the point of view that such minimal pairs show “regular meaningful contrasts between indicative and subjunctive”. This contrast “is fundamentally the same in each case” (Hewson 1997: 111). As previously stated, I believe that the pragmatic implication of the meaningful contrast between the Indicative and the Subjunctive is the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence or the avoidance of such a commitment. The Subjunctive is used for those occurrences in which the encoder avoids committing. The Indicative is used to express the encoder’s making commitment to an occurrence.

2.

Preface xxv

A systematic approach

This book does not appeal to a many-to-one relationship between a form and its functions. Instead of this, it argues that all the uses of a form have a common denominator, an invariant meaning that motivates the total distribution of that form in language. I postulate a one form-one meaning relationship for all of the uses of the Subjunctive and the Indicative respectively. In other words, I claim that all of the uses of each mood are derived from its invariant meaning. I reject the traditionally established functions of mood and governing linguistic environments. The common denominator for mood uses, which I advocate by this volume, is based on the Saussurean notion of the linguistic sign, which is used as the basic unit of analysis. The concept of the linguistic sign, as developed by Saussure (2001 [1916]), represents a unit composed of a signal (Saussure’s signifiant ‘signifier’) “which is inseparably connected by and united with […] an abstract invariant meaning” (Tobin 1995: 10) (Saussure’s signifié ‘signified’). The use and the distribution of the sign are not arbitrary, but are communicatively motivated. I mean that the sign appears where it does because its single invariant meaning conveys information that serves a particular communicative purpose. I propose that the Indicative invariably means Occurrence. This mood is appropriate for asserting or committing to an occurrence. The encoder favors the Indicative when he/she intends to express a message of occurrence. On the other hand, I propose that the Subjunctive invariably means Alternative to Occurrence. This mood is more appropriate for avoiding the assertion or the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. It draws the decoder’s (hearer’s or reader’s) attention away from the actual occurrence in favor of an alternative, which is not taking place, but which might also be possible. The view of language as both an inventory of Saussurean signs and as a device of human communication has been proposed by Columbia School theory, founded by William Diver and continued by his students. This theory has been adopted as a theoretical framework in this volume. The Columbia School assumption that language is a communicative device implies the Saussurean distinction between langue ‘language’ and parole ‘speech’. Langue is considered “an abstract code composed of signals and invariant meanings (i.e. linguistic signs) and their paradigmatic, or associative, and syntagmatic relationships; a complex abstract code which is shared by a community of speakers” (Tobin 1995: 7). Parole is considered “the concrete and seemingly chaotic realization of this complex abstract code exploited by individual speakers to communicate specific discourse messages in different linguistic and situational contexts” (ibid). In Columbia School terminology, this is the distinction between invariant meanings as part of the language itself and variable messages as part of communication, i.e. as the use of the

xxvi Expressing the Same by the Different

language. The encoder exploits a relatively abstract invariant meaning of a signal to convey concrete contextual messages. Therefore, the distribution of the linguistic sign can be explained by “the contribution its meaning makes to the message being communicated” (Contini-Morava 1983: 37). The primary purpose of this volume is, then, “the postulation of the invariant meanings of linguistic signs […] and to explain how these invariant sign meanings are exploited by human beings to communicate specific discourse messages” (Tobin 1995: 8). This volume analyzes the Indicative and the Subjunctive as linguistic signs, i.e. as signals with invariant meanings that motivate their distribution in French. The volume provides examples of their motivated distribution. Part 1 presents the theoretical background of the problem surrounding the French mood. This part is divided into two chapters comparing sentence-oriented and sign-oriented approaches. The major difference between the sign-oriented Columbia School approach and sentence-oriented approaches is the principle of “invariance versus variation” (Tobin 1990: 51). In this volume, I postulate the invariant meaning of each mood, viewed as a sign, and apply it to different sentences (or messages, in Columbia School terminology). The sentence-oriented point of view, historically and even today, equates the functions which a form can fulfill within a sentence with the meanings of that form. These meanings are listed according to the most common functions (or uses) of a form. As Contini-Morava (1983: 36) points out, such a list is “an inevitable consequence of an analytical procedure which seeks to identify the meaning of a linguistic form as a notional fraction of the message conveyed by the sentences where that form occurs”. The functions of forms are often inconsistent and overlapping, as we have seen in examples (1)–(18). Therefore, using functions as the basic unit of analysis does not allow sentenced-oriented linguists to come up with “a single over-arching meaning that includes all uses” (Diver 1995: 74). In particular, the following sentenceoriented approaches are examined in Part 1: a. The syntactic approach (as illustrated by Bally 1965; Börjeson 1966; Boysen 1971; Cox 1986; Foulet 1972; Gross 1978, 1986; Harmer 1954; Hejno 1980, 1988; Poplack 1992; Vet 1998) views the Subjunctive as being more or less arbitrarily triggered by lexical or syntactical governors. b. The generative approach (as illustrated by Barbaud 1991; Huot 1986; KampersManhe 1987, 1991, 1998; Lalaire 1998; Progovac 1993) views the Subjunctive clause as a syntactic effect of the matrix clause within the government and binding theory of Chomsky (1984). c. The functional approach (as illustrated by Blücher 1979; Brunot 1965; Cellard 1996; Cohen 1965; Corbeil 1971; De Boer 1947; Globevnik 1983; Gougenheim 1965, 1969; Haillet 1995; Imbs 1953; Larousse Grammar (cf. Chevalier

d.

e.

f.

g.

Preface xxvii

et al. 1973); Nordahl 1969; Regula 1936, 1966a, b; Touratier 1996; von Wartburg & Zumthor 1973) views the use of the Subjunctive as being the result of performed functions. The functional approach of Martinet (1979) deserves special attention because Martinet attempts to apply the Saussurean conception of the linguistic sign in his analysis as well as emphasizes the communicative function of language, but finally remains on the traditional, sentence-oriented positions. The cognitive approach (as illustrated by Winters 1989, 1993) views the Subjunctive as a polysemous linguistic model whose units are internally organized around the most typical meaning, the prototype. The psycho-semantic approach (as illustrated by Brunot & Bruneau 1969; Damourette & Pichon 1968 [1936]; Grevisse 1961, 2001; Le Bidois 1968a, b; Sato 1974; Togeby 1982; Van der Molen 1923; Wagner & Pinchon 1962) views the opposition of the Indicative versus the Subjunctive as a psychological phenomenon. The logico-pragmatic approach (as illustrated by Larreya 1979, 1984, 1987; Martin 1983; Nølke 1993, 2001) views the use of the Subjunctive as the result of the formal interpretation of the speaker’s attitude towards the information that he/she conveys in the sentence.

Part 1 also presents the problem of mood as it is viewed by two major sign-oriented linguistic schools: the Jakobsonian School and the School of Psychomechanics of Language of G. Guillaume. Part 2 presents the theoretical and methodological background for this volume. I first explain the sign-oriented Columbia School approach. I then present an alternative analysis of the use and the non-random distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. A grammatical system is postulated which includes both moods and which deals with the nature of events, actions or states of being (hereafter, occurrences), expressed by a lexical meaning (verb, in traditional terminology). This system was originally proposed by Diver (1969: 47–48) and developed by Reid (1974: 50–51) who referred to it as the Occurrence system. The Indicative and the Subjunctive are postulated as Saussurean signs whose opposed invariant meanings form this Occurrence System. The hypothesis is that within the Occurrence System the Indicative invariably means Occurrence, whereas the Subjunctive invariably means Alternative to Occurrence. The latter implies an alternative to the occurrence that the verb in the Subjunctive expresses in a sentence. The meaning Alternative was suggested by de Jonge (1999, 2001, 2004) in his Columbia School study of the Spanish Subjunctive. I show that this meaning, applied to the French Subjunctive, accounts for the use and distribution of this mood in French.

xxviii


Parts 3 and 4 provide examples of the use and the distribution of both the Indicative and the Subjunctive as being motivated by their invariant meanings. Their use and distribution are validated both qualitatively and quantitatively. Part 3 is concerned with the “micro-level” analysis of the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in individual examples. I show specific linguistic contexts where one mood is preferred over the other and explain this preference by reference to particular communicative purposes, contributed to by the postulated invariant meanings. Frequency counts validate predictions about the distribution of both moods in these contexts. The counts show a correlation between the Indicative and the Subjunctive, on the one hand, and the signs of the grammatical systems whose invariant meanings share the semantic substance of the Occurrence System, on the other. Part 4 is concerned with the “macro-level” analysis of the distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive within a larger “macro-level” discourse, i.e. within a text. Predictions are validated about the preference of one mood over the other in particular contexts of texts of different styles and genres. These predictions are based on the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive concerning their relation to a message, conveyed by a text. Two different approaches are applied: the “from sign to text” approach and the “from text to sign” approach. These approaches have been suggested by Tobin (1990, 1993a, 1995) for the analysis of the distribution of linguistic forms within a text. According to the “from sign to text” approach, the distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive is related to their use in particular themes (leitmotifs) of the text. In other words, this approach “works its way up from sign and system to context and text” (Tobin 1995: 144). Following the “from text to sign” approach, the distribution of both moods is determined and motivated by the message of the text itself, viewed as a sign in its own right. This approach works its way down “from text and context to system and sign” (Tobin 1995: 101). Part 5 deals with the historical disfavoring of the Subjunctive from Old French to Contemporary French. My claim is that this disfavoring was caused by the narrowing of the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive. I hypothesize that the Old French Subjunctive invariably meant Occurrence Questioned that implied uncertain possibility as perceived by the encoder. The narrower invariant meaning Alternative to Occurrence of the Contemporary French Subjunctive implies a more specific alternative of which the encoder is aware. Part 5 shows that the broader meaning of the Old French Subjunctive allowed the encoder to exploit this mood more frequently than the Contemporary French Subjunctive with its more narrow meaning. Part 5 also deals with the favoring of the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives and the disfavoring of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives in Contem-

Preface xxix

porary French. It is traditionally argued that the tense in the main clause influences the use of these forms of the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Alternatively, in Part 5, I show that the use of the Subjunctive forms is motivated by their invariant meanings within the System of Relevance. Following Diver (1969: 48), I postulate that this system deals with the relative relevance of either an occurrence or an alternative to the encoder or “to the main interest of the communication in process”. I hypothesize that within the System of Relevance both in Old and in Contemporary French, the Present Subjunctive invariably means a More Relevant occurrence/alternative, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive invariably means a Less Relevant occurrence/alternative. I contend that the distribution of the forms of the Subjunctive in both periods is motivated by these invariant meanings and I validate this claim both qualitatively and quantitatively. Starting with these premises, I set the following rationale for writing this volume: 1. To present the Saussurean semiotic or sign-oriented approach of one formone meaning as an alternative means that explains the distribution of French mood. 2. To postulate the semantic substance of the Occurrence System as well as the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive whose opposition constitutes the Occurrence System and motivates the distribution of each of them in French. 3. Based on the meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive, to explain why these moods appear where they do and what specific discourse situations favor one mood over the other. 4. To postulate the invariant meaning of the Old French Subjunctive and to explain the diachronic disfavoring of the Subjunctive, by contrasting the Old French Subjunctive with the Contemporary French Subjunctive. 5. To postulate the semantic substance of the System of Relevance as well as the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive forms, the opposition of which constitutes the System of Relevance. 6. Based on these invariant meanings, to compare the use of the Subjunctive forms both in Old and in Contemporary French and to account for the favoring of the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives and the disfavoring of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives in Contemporary French. 7. Based on the data, collected from texts of different styles and genres, to provide examples of how all these invariant meanings are exploited by human beings to communicate specific discourse messages.

xxx Expressing the Same by the Different

Based on the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive, in this volume I provide an account for all their uses in French. These meanings are not arbitrary. They not only explain the use of both moods, but also allow one to predict their distribution. I show that each use of the Indicative focuses the decoder’s attention on an occurrence. Therefore, the encoder exploits the Indicative to assert an occurrence and to emphasize his/her commitment to an occurrence. On the other hand, each use of the Subjunctive focuses the decoder’s attention on another, alternative occurrence. Therefore, the encoder exploits this mood to avoid asserting and committing to the actual occurrence. The purpose of this volume is to present a systematic approach of the distribution of French moods, the Indicative and the Subjunctive, based on the notion of sign and invariant meaning.

part 1

The problem of French mood

chapter 1

Sentence-oriented approaches

The following survey presents sentence-oriented approaches to the problem of French mood as well as my arguments against sentence-oriented points of view. The goal of this survey is to show the major differences between sentence-oriented approaches and the sign-oriented Columbia School approach. As previously stated, sentence-oriented grammar often takes for granted that the Indicative is “the mood of reality and certainty” (Harmer 1954: 213) that provides objective information, expresses a fact, etc. Therefore, sentence-oriented approaches focus on the Subjunctive, whose various functions are the subject of much debate. The survey first presents syntactic and generative approaches that formalize the uses of the Subjunctive and often consider them arbitrary and meaningless. Functional approaches, discussed next, attribute different uses of the Subjunctive to different functions, but view only some of them as being meaningless. I further examine cognitive and psycho-semantic approaches that tackle the problem of the meanings of French mood. Cognitive grammar proposes polysemous linguistic meanings of the Subjunctive, whereas the meanings of the psycho-semantic approach are extra-linguistic. They deal with the speaker’s psychological attitude. The logico-pragmatic approach is the last sentence-oriented approach to be discussed in this survey. Within this approach, Nølke (1993, 2001) tries to find a common denominator for all of the uses of the Subjunctive. Yet, like the other sentence-oriented researchers, he does not follow the Saussurean sign-oriented model. Instead of considering linguistic signs, Nølke adopts the sentence as the basic unit of analysis although sentences are part of communication, and not part of the structure of language. All the aforementioned researchers look for the meanings of the components of the sentence – morphemes, words and clauses – that are in a many-to-one relationship with the ideas that they can convey. Consider Diver (1995) on this matter: And since there are many more sentences, and thoughts, than there are morphemes, the consequence is usually a fairly long list of quite distinct “uses” of individual morphemes […] (Diver 1995: 73)

An alternative to the polysemic or sentence-oriented approach is the monosemic or sign-oriented approach that is based on a one form-one meaning relationship.


1.1 Syntactic approach The syntactic approach deals with the inventories of syntactic relationships. The alternation between the Subjunctive and the Indicative is associated here with the problem of government. If a clause within a complex sentence can be used as a separate sentence in its own right, it is said to be the main clause. Otherwise, a clause functions as an adjectival, adverbial, or nominal complement of the main clause and, therefore, is called the subordinate clause. According to this point of view, the syntactical or lexical components of the main clause determine, or govern, the syntactical or lexical components of the subordinate clause. Since the Subjunctive appears mostly in the subordinate clause, it is argued that its use is governed by syntactical or lexical triggers of the main clause. However, the syntactic approach has two great flaws: a. The so-called triggers convey so many different ideas that it is impossible to define their common lexical characteristics, let alone to find one meaning that would be appropriate for all of them. b. The Subjunctive that these triggers govern appears in various and even mutually exclusive contexts: e.g., the Subjunctive of the unreal and the doubtful (cf. example (2) from the Preface) versus the Subjunctive of indisputable facts (cf. examples (6)–(8) from the Preface). (2) […] il faudra que j’avertisse (S) toute ma famille, que j’envoie (S) des dépêches, que j’écrive (S) des lettres, que je m’occupe (S) des faire-parts, de l’inhumation, que j’aille (S) à Naples réclamer le corps […] (Gide 1975 [1922] : 209) ‘[…] I shall have to communicate (S) [avertisse] with the family, send (S) [envoie] telegrams, write (S) [écrive] letters, make (S) [m’occupe] arrangements for the funeral, go (S) [aille] to Naples to fetch the body… ’ (Gide 1952: 207) (6) […] le fait que la France soit (S) la seule équipe à représenter l’hémisphère Nord […] n’a rien changé. […] (Libération, 30–31 octobre 1999, p. 49) ‘[…] in spite of the fact that France may (S) be [soit] the only team that will represent the Northern Hemisphere […], nothing will change. […]’ (7) […] Il est exact que ce soit (S) écrit, mais ce qui est écrit est une erreur. (Vian 1962 : 28–29) “[…] “It’s right that this is (S) [soit] written, but what is written is a mistake.”’

Chapter 1. Sentence-oriented approaches

(8) “[…] c’est un parti […] qui nie qu’il y ait (S) eu des génocides contre les Juifs et les Tziganes […]. (Le Monde, http://www.lemonde.fr/, Le Pen évoque des « ordres » […], 15.02.04) ‘“[…] this party […] denies that genocide was (S) perpetrated [ait eu] against Jews and Gypsies. […].’

From (a) and (b) above, one may infer that the Subjunctive is meaningless because if mood conveys a meaning, “its selection in a given context should not be affected by morphological and syntactic features of that context” (Poplack 1992: 257). However, according to the rules of government, the use of the Subjunctive is strongly dependent on features of context. Bally (1965) expresses an extreme point of view claiming that the Subjunctive is a “linguistic fossil” (cf. Moignet 1959: 70). Bally (1965: 35–36) distinguishes between the idea expressed by the subordinate clause (Bally’s dictum) and the modality expressed by the main clause (Bally’s modus). Bally (ibid: 153) views the Subjunctive as a grammatical pleonasm that has no “autonomous” meaning (ibid: 46). According to Bally (ibid: 48, 182), the Subjunctive is an arbitrary symbol or a tool of transposition of the independent sentence into the complex sentence. According to Foulet (1972: 204), the use of the Subjunctive is mostly conventional and, therefore, it is useless to look for its meaning. Harmer (1954: 197, notes) claims that the use of mood in Contemporary French is illogical and capricious, “aggravated in some authors by the fact that they sometimes use the indicative, sometimes the subjunctive, as the spirit appears to move them” . According to the transformational analysis of Gross (1978), the use of the Subjunctive is unpredictable. Gross claims that the values, attributed to this mood are incoherent and obscure. Therefore, there is no point in seeking a semantic explanation for the use of the Subjunctive because this mood is only a meaningless morphological variant of the Indicative: […] il n’y a pas à rechercher d’explication sémantique à la présence du subjonctif. Des études des relations entre forme et sens faites sur le français […] ne révèlent pas de possibilité de caractérisation des formes par le sens. (Gross 1978 : 64) ‘We need not seek a semantic explanation for the presence of the Subjunctive. Studies of relationships between form and meaning, made for French […], do not reveal any possibility of the characterization of its forms by meanings.’

Poplack (1992) presents the analysis of mood in Canadian French. She assumes that the choice of mood in the subordinate clause is governed by the properties of matrices (the main clause). According to Poplack, it is a question of “the purely syntactic factor of agreement” (ibid: 257) with the matrix verb or of “other factors of morphosyntactic nature” (ibid) in the matrix. Since it is impossible to


find a common denominator for all the governors of the Subjunctive, Poplack postulates variability as the main inherent feature of this mood. According to Poplack (ibid: 242, 243), this means that the Subjunctive, the Indicative and the Conditional are the variants of the same linguistic variable and may alternate in embedded clauses without any difference in meaning. The choice of each variant is “conditioned, or even promoted, by the existence of certain [syntactic and morphological] factors in the environment” (ibid: 242). Poplack lists affirmation, negation, interrogation or condition in the matrix clause, the presence of other lexical indicators of modality, the tense and semantic class of the matrix verb and the presence of the complementizer que ‘that’ among the factors that contribute to the use of the Subjunctive. Boysen (1971) claims that semantic criteria have little influence over the usage of French mood. Therefore, in his analysis of the use of the Subjunctive in nominal clauses, Boysen proposes a syntagmatic three level hierarchy of factors that, in his opinion, govern this mood. Boysen attributes the first level (Boysen’s niveau homonexe) of his hierarchy to the infrequent use of the Subjunctive in the main clause. According to Boysen, at this level, the government is not strictly speaking concerned. The Subjunctive is expressed here only by the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives of specific verbs (être ‘to be’, avoir ‘to have’, or devoir ‘to have to’). Additionally, the Subjunctive can be replaced by the Conditional mood without any difference in meaning (ibid: 26), as in example (1), taken from the short story Bonsoir, chérie by Maurois (1946). (1) Sans la mèche de cheveux blancs que Françoise, on ne savait pas pourquoi, se refusait à faire teindre, on les eût (S) à grand’peine distinguées l’une de l’autre. (Maurois 1946 : 111) ‘Except for the white streak in her hair which for some reason known only to herself Françoise refused to have tinted – it would be difficult to tell (S) them apart [eût distinguées].’ (Maurois 1949: 325)

At the second level (Boysen’s niveau homo-hétéronexe), according to Boysen, the Subjunctive is governed by the sentence-initial position of the subordinate clause that precedes the main clause. Boysen does not explain why the sentence-initial position of the subordinate clause favors the Subjunctive. He only attributes this descriptive fact to the second level of his hierarchy. Example (2), taken from the novel Les Caves du Vatican ‘The Vatican Cellars’ by Gide (1975) [1922], illustrates this use of the Subjunctive. Despite the verb affirmer ‘to affirm’ that traditionally governs the Indicative, the Subjunctive appears in the subordinate clause in sentence-initial position.


(2) Sans doute Armand-Dubois avait été l’objet d’une faveur insigne. Que la Vierge lui fût (S) réellement apparue, c’est ce qu’il était peut-être imprudent d’affirmer; mais quand bien même il l’aurait vue seulement en rêve, sa guérison du moins était là, indéniable, miraculeuse assurément. (Gide 1975 [1922] : 38) ‘Doubtless Armand-Dubois had been the object of special mercy. It would perhaps be imprudent to affirm that the Virgin had (S) [fût apparue] actually appeared to him, but even if he had seen her only in a dream, his cure was still a matter of fact – incontrovertible, demonstrable and assuredly miraculous.’ (Gide 1952: 31)

The most important level, according to Boysen, is the third level (Boysen’s niveau hétéronexe) of the hierarchy. It deals with the most frequent use of the Subjunctive in subordinate clauses that follow the main clause. At this level, Boysen distinguishes the following four groups of governing factors: a. b. c. d.

Specific derivative prefixes of a governing verb (Boysen’s dérivatif). The tense, the aspect, the person of a governing verb (Boysen’s flexif). Syntactic factors. The root of a governing verb (Boysen’s racine).

The syntactic factors include the influence of auxiliary verbs (e.g., the use of simple tenses versus complex tenses of a governing verb), adverbial phrases (e.g., the use of vouloir ‘to want’ versus vouloir bien ‘to be willing’), prepositional phrases following a governing verb (e.g., the use of à ce que versus de ce que), the animate or inanimate subject of a governing verb. Börjeson (1966) lists semantic and syntactic factors that influence the Subjunctive or the “non-Subjunctive” in nominal clauses. According to Börjeson, the forms that express the unreality or the uncertainty in the main clause trigger the Subjunctive of uncertainty in the subordinate clause. The tense of a verb in the main clause triggers the Subjunctive of an undetermined temporal value, etc. Like other researchers, Börjeson does not attribute the use of mood to its invariant meaning, but to morpho-syntactic factors. The traditional treatment of the Subjunctive as a meaningless form that is arbitrarily triggered by the nature of the matrix or the matrix verb is problematic because: 1. Despite the so-called morphological defectiveness of the Subjunctive (cf. Bally 1965: 258–259), i.e. though the Subjunctive sometimes overlaps with the Indicative, the former is still used in everyday discourse. Consider Moignet (1959) on this matter:


[…] il n’est que d’écouter parler les gens du peuple : si les subjonctifs sont moins fréquents dans leur langage que dans celui des gens cultivés, ils n’en sont nullement bannis, tant s’en faut. […] Si certains demi-cultivés pèchent par « hypersubjonctivisme », il nous semble que ce genre de faute serait bien plus fréquent, si le subjonctif n’était qu’un élégant « ersatz » de l’indicatif. (Moignet 1959 : 72–73) ‘It suffices to listen to the common people. Though the Subjunctive is less frequent in their language than in language of the educated people, it has not disappeared at all, far from that. […] Though certain semiliterate people “overuse” the Subjunctive, it seems to us that this kind of mistake would be much more frequent, if the Subjunctive were only an elegant “substitute” of the Indicative.’

2. The data (cf. examples (9)–(14) from the Preface) show exceptions to the rules of government. (9) Ça veut pas dire faut qu’on est (I) obligés de payer pour, nous-autres. (Poplack 1992 : 241) ‘It doesn’t mean we have to be (I) [est] forced to pay for it.’ (ibid) (10) Il faut que ça tient (I) quand même un peu. (Cohen 1965 : 133) ‘It has to stand (I) [tient] a little.’ (11) on peut y aller tout de suite après qu’il ait (S) mangé. (Canut & Ledegen 1998 : 30) ‘We can go there just after he eats (S) [ait mangé].’ (12) La campagne électorale s’est ouverte, après qu’un long débat se soit (S) poursuivi entre… (Cohen 1965 : 224) ‘The election campaign opened after a long debate (S) [se soit poursuivi] between […]’ (13) […] après que le Carton-Romain eût (S) fait ses preuves […] (Gide 1975 [1922] : 115) ‘[…] when once Roman Plaster had (S) proved [eût fait] its reliability […]’ (Gide 1952: 109) (14) […] après qu’un de nos forts-en-thèmes, qu’il détestait, lui eût (S) dit un jour […] (Gide 1975 [1922] : 81) ‘[…] when one of the fellows who was good at book-learning and whom he detested, said (S) [eût dit] to him […]’ (Gide 1952: 74)

3. Poplack (1992) acknowledges that the distinction between the semantic classes of the matrix verbs that are claimed to govern the Subjunctive is unclear at best. These classes differ from one researcher to another. However, Poplack argues that this inconsistency is not connected with any defect of sentenceoriented analyses or approaches. Instead of this, she draws the conclusion that the Subjunctive is an inconsistent and meaningless mood.


4. The minimal pairs (15)–(18) from the Preface with the same linguistic environment have shown that the alternation between the Indicative and the Subjunctive is motivated by a difference in their invariant meanings rather than being arbitrarily triggered by lexical or syntactical governors. (15) Je ne crois pas qu’il est (I) malade. ‘I don’t think he is (I) [est] sick.’ (16) Je ne crois pas qu’il soit (S) malade. ‘I don’t think he may (S) be [soit] sick.’ (17) Il n’y a qu’un remède qui peut (I) le guérir. ‘There is only one remedy that can (I) [peut] cure him.’ (18) Il n’y a qu’un remède qui puisse (S) le guérir. ‘There is only one remedy that may (S) [puisse] cure him.’

5. Starting with the Columbia School assumption that human beings invest “minimal effort for maximal results in the semiotic communication process” (Tobin 1995: 12), it seems improbable that meaningless forms would be kept in language to the detriment of “economy of effort” (Diver 1995: 44). 6. The Columbia School assumption that language is a communicative tool also means that the distribution of linguistic forms is not arbitrary, but is motivated by their invariant meanings whose conveyed messages serve a particular communicative purpose. In other words, “linguistic forms occur where they do because they are the signals of meanings, being used by people to communicate messages” (Contini-Morava 1995: 1–2).

1.2 Generative approach The problem of the government of French mood has been the focus of more recent generative research within government and binding theory, developed by Chomsky (1984). Chomsky interprets the Saussurean distinction between langue ‘language’ and parole ‘speech’ as the differentiation between grammatical competence (the knowledge of native speakers) and performance (the realization of what individual speakers say in any situation). The examples of speakers’ performance, according to Chomsky, are chosen randomly and cannot predict nor explain possible counterexamples. Therefore, in his study, Chomsky uses invented sentenc. The difference between the Saussurean notions of langue and parole and the Chomskyan notions of competence and performance are discussed in greater detail in Tobin (1990, 1993a, 1995).

10


es. The focus of Chomsky’s study is the analysis of the competence that native speakers have acquired via the language acquisition device (LAD). As stated by Chomsky, this device enables native speakers to distinguish between grammatical sentences that are well formed and allowed by language and ungrammatical sentences that are not allowed by language. Chomsky attempts to write generative grammars that would formally represent all the possible grammatical sentences of specific languages. His Universal Grammar includes structural rules and principles that, in his opinion, underlie all languages. The major interest of generative research can be summed up by the following questions: […] generative theory seeks to provide a formal account of at least the following: (a) native speakers’ judgments about sentence structure and well-formedness, interpreted as a reflection of their underlying grammatical competence; (b) the “creativity” of language, defined as a speaker’s ability to produce and understand an infinite number of formally distinct sentences. (Contini-Morava 1995: 3)

Several analyses appeal to the government and binding theory in order to account for the phenomenon of the Subjunctive. The analysis of Lalaire (1998) is the most detailed generative study of the French Subjunctive. It is based upon three modules: X-bar theory that regulates the internal hierarchical structure of phrases, thematic theory that regulates the assignment of thematic roles to arguments, and case theory that regulates the assignment of cases to arguments. From the point of view of X-bar theory, Lalaire postulates that embedded (subordinate) clauses with the Subjunctive contain a feature that distinguishes them from matrix (main) clauses. This feature is the subordinate position of the Subjunctive, referred to as the COMP position, or ‘opacity’ that plays the major role in the government of mood. The Subjunctive is used in embedded clauses whose position COMP is not transparent, i.e. does not contain the maximal projection. This happens when the lexical meaning of a governor has a feature [+virtual] or when the matrix clause conveys specific illocutionary acts (interrogation, hypothesis, negation). From the point of view of thematic theory, the Subjunctive in the embedded clause may be governed by a specific theta-function of a governing argument, referred to as theta-marked theme, or by shifting the maximal projection to sentence-initial position, as in example (2) above. (2) […] Que la Vierge lui fût (S) réellement apparue, c’est ce qu’il était peut-être imprudent d’affirmer […] (Gide 1975 [1922] : 38)

. For more details about the modules and principles, used in the government and binding theory, see also Haegeman (1991).


‘[…] It would perhaps be imprudent to affirm that the Virgin had (S) [fût apparue] actually appeared to him […]’ (Gide 1952: 31)

According to Lalaire, the implications of case theory on the use of the Subjunctive are manifested by the insertion of the prepositional phrases de ce que or à ce que. Barbaud (1991) appeals to X-bar theory and, more specifically, to the Empty Category Principle (ECP) in order to explain the use of the Subjunctive in embedded clauses. He defines ECP in the following way: An empty category B must have an antecedent A such that (1) A governs B or (2) A c-commands B, and there exists a lexical category X such that X governs B and A is contained in some percolation projection of X. (Barbaud 1991: 132)

Barbaud formulates the hypothesis that “the formal syntactic property of the Subjunctive is that it is an empty category” (ibid: 129) that obeys ECP. Barbaud divides all of the uses of the Subjunctive into three subsets: […] we distinguish, at least for French, between what we call “le subjonctif de sélection” – the subjunctive of selection – for the first subset; “le subjonctif d’induction” – the subjunctive of induction, or induced subjunctive – for the second set, and finally “le subjonctif d’illocution” – the subjunctive of illocution or illocutionary subjunctive – for the last subset. (Barbaud 1991: 126)

According to Barbaud, the Subjunctive of selection is governed lexically. It “depends on a specific lexical head which, in French, can be either a verb, a noun, an adjective or a preposition” (ibid: 126). In the absence of a lexical head, one deals with the induced Subjunctive that may be governed by “a small set of grammatical elements” (ibid: 127). These elements either obligatorily govern the Subjunctive or trigger “a subjunctive clause as well as an indicative clause” (ibid). In particular, Barbaud deals with negative contexts, contexts with indefinite relative clauses, contexts with superlatives and similar clauses and contexts with indirect word order in “yes/no” questions. Lastly, Barbaud deals with the Subjunctive of illocution. According to him, this Subjunctive appears mainly in simple sentences, but its use is complementary with that in embedded clauses. Barbaud considers jussive (imperative), hypothetic and optative (expressing wish) illocutionary contexts that absolutely require the Subjunctive. Starting with the assumption that an embedded Subjunctive depends on an antecedent (either a lexical head or a grammatical trigger), Barbaud considers this mood “a syntactic empty category submitted to ECP” (ibid: 132).

11

12


Therefore, we arrive at the expected result: a universal principle, namely ECP, accounts for the behavior of the Subjunctive to the extent that we analyze this particular mode as an empty modal complementizer. (Barbaud 1991: 138)

Kampers-Manhe (1991) deals with the use of the Subjunctive in its opposition to the Indicative in relative clauses. Kampers-Manhe argues that in terms of the Universal Grammar, the Subjunctive does not imply an autonomous process because this mood does not specify tense. Therefore, one cannot attribute truth-value to the propositional content of sentences where the Subjunctive appears. This alleged deficiency determines the fact that the Subjunctive is the mood of dependence which is used preferentially in the subordinate clause. Huot (1986) proposes a generative analysis of the use of the Subjunctive in nominal clauses. Starting with Damourette & Pichon’s idea that the Subjunctive means non-assertion, Huot claims that the use of this mood implies that no truthvalue can be assigned to a sentence. She points out that this statement, however, is problematic for the Subjunctive which is used after emotional and appreciative verbs or verb phrases that often comment on factual occurrences. Therefore, Huot claims that the choice of mood is governed by the special feature [±QU] of inflection INFL of subordinate clauses. The feature [–QU] shows the standard situation when the subordinate clause appears after a direct word order of the subject or assertion in the main clause. The feature [+QU] is associated with an indirect word order of the subject or negation in the main clause after which the Subjunctive is often used in the subordinate clause. The following arguments present the weakness of the formalization of language, as advocated by generative theory: 1. As any formal approach, generative grammar is based on the syntactic principle of government to which exceptions have been previously shown by the data. 2. Generative theory focuses on “formal principles and the organization of grammar […] rather than on specific solutions to specific problems in the analysis of specific languages” (Kirsner 2002: 356). 3. The analyses of Chomsky and his followers are strongly based on the concept of native speakers’ intuitions. The projection principle and empty category principle, for example, are the result of pure formalization of the speaker’s intuitions detached from the communicative use of language. As stated by Kirsner (ibid: 358), “no psycholinguistic evidence is put forward for such entities as” the X-bar theory, the case theory, the theta theory, the nodes, etc. “Such entities simply exist as descriptive devices, as tools of a particular formalization” (ibid). Therefore, they are intuitive, abstract and unclear to the same extent. They are “artificially created obstacles that make an explanation


of the real data difficult, and often impossible” (Otheguy 2002: 382). The arbitrariness of the created models is strengthened by divergences among generativists about the roles that these abstract categories play in language. This strong reliance on native speakers’ intuition is what methodologically distinguishes generative approach from sign-oriented approaches such as Columbia School theory. Tobin (1990) pronounces on this matter as follows: The first methodological difference between the sign-oriented versus sentenceoriented approach is the source and control of the linguistic data for an analysis. Sentence-oriented approaches today basically rely on native speakers’ intuitions in analyzing a grammar of competence and generally shun what people actually say by avoiding a grammar of performance. Therefore a speaker’s abstract intuitions may be both the source and control of a linguistic analysis: i.e. judgments based on abstract intuitions to validate abstract linguistic hypotheses. Sign-oriented analyses, on the other hand, usually rely on both observable spoken and written data in context, what speakers and writers actually do (parole), which also reflects their intuitions, as well as judgments based on their intuitions. Therefore linguistic data both on the concrete and abstract levels may serve as the source and control of a sign-oriented linguistic analysis. (Tobin 1990: 71)

While Columbia School theory can appeal to native speakers’ intuition to hypothesize invariant meanings, the most frequent source of Columbia School analyses is real linguistic data, documented from spoken and written language. In order to neutralize the role of intuition in the validation of invariant meanings, invented examples are used as little as possible in Columbia School analyses, and the choice of one form over another is judged from wider linguistic and situational contexts. 4. It might also be argued that the generative approach has a great number of followers, while the Columbia School approach is clearly in the minority. However, though generative approach has gained “the intellectual marketplace”, this success “does not necessarily entail the correctness or superiority of that approach” (Kirsner 2002: 342).

1.3 Functional approach Instead of dealing with French mood as being syntactically triggered, functionalists (Cohen 1965; De Boer 1947; Nordahl 1969; Touratier 1996) consider the use of mood to be determined by a set of functions. The difference between the syntactic and functional approaches can be best understood from the comparison of the syntactic study of Boysen (1971) with the functional study of Blücher (1979).

13

14


They both deal with the hierarchy of factors that influence the use of the Subjunctive. Boysen’s hierarchy is based on syntactic criteria that govern the meaningless Subjunctive, while Blücher’s hierarchy deals with the functions of the Subjunctive that determine whether its use is meaningful or meaningless. Blücher proposes a three level functional hierarchy of the Subjunctive. The first level of the Subjunctive hierarchy is differentiation which changes the meaning of a sentence, as in the minimal pair of examples (4)–(5). These examples represent the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative in the relative clause with an indefinite antecedent. According to Blücher, the Subjunctive in this minimal pair expresses a possible, unspecified occurrence, while the Indicative expresses a real, specified occurrence. Since in this volume I advocate the view of language as a communicative tool, I deal with the communicative purpose of the use of French mood. In example (4), the Subjunctive is used to show that the existence of a person who would speak English is uncertain. One would expect this situation somewhere in Iran or in North Korea. On the other hand, in example (5), the Indicative is used to show that the encoder knows for sure that somebody speaks English. One would expect this situation somewhere in Israel, even if this person were unknown to the encoder. (4) Je cherche une personne qui sache (S) l’anglais. (Blücher 1979 : 31) ‘I’m looking for somebody who might (S) know [sache] English.’ (5) Je cherche une personne qui sait (I) l’anglais. (Blücher 1979 : 31) ‘I’m looking for somebody who knows (I) [sait] English.’

According to Blücher, the Subjunctive of the second (automatic) level is a redundant and meaningless mood that is required by certain syntactic constructions such as the conjunction jusqu’à ce que ‘until’ in example (6). The use of the Indicative is viewed as a mistake at this level. I have previously shown in the Preface by counterexamples (9)–(13) that the rules of government have exceptions. Therefore, I appeal to the communicative purpose of the use of the Subjunctive. In example (6), the Subjunctive refers to an uncertain moment in the future, i.e. to an occurrence that has not yet become a fact. It implies the encoder’s doubt about whether that occurrence will take place or not. (6) Je resterai ici jusqu’à ce que tu me mettes (S) à la porte. (Blücher 1979 : 37) ‘I will stay here until you throw (S) [mettes] me out.’

According to Blücher, the use of the Subjunctive at the third level of variation is optional and meaningless because it can alternate with the Indicative without changing the meaning of a sentence. I follow the assumption of Columbia School theory that all the appearances of a form in language are meaningful and com-


municatively motivated. The minimal pair of examples (7)–(8) opposes the use of both moods with a negated expression of certainty. In example (7), the Subjunctive is used to emphasize a doubt about the realization of an occurrence. It implies that this realization might be as possible as not. In example (8), the Indicative is used to emphasize the encoder’s belief that this realization is rather impossible. (7) Il n’est pas certain que ce soit (S) possible. (Blücher 1979 : 29) ‘It is not sure that this may (S) be [soit] possible.’ (8) Il n’est pas certain que c’est (I) possible. (Blücher 1979 : 29) ‘It is not sure that this is (I) [est] possible.’

It follows from the study of Blücher (1979) and other functional studies (cf. Cohen 1965; Nordahl 1969; Touratier 1996) that each French mood performs more than one function. Since the functions of a form are traditionally equated with its meanings, it is claimed that the French mood is naturally polysemous. Cohen (1965) states the following: […] il est bien rare que les caractéristiques morphologiques d’une forme verbale s’associent à une valeur simple ou si l’on veut une valeur unique, ou autrement formulé encore une fonction unique. C’est un fait que le matériel linguistique […] comporte normalement des cumuls, dus à la circonstance que le nombre des formes est inférieur à celui des idées distinctes grammaticalisables. (Cohen 1965 : 7) ‘The morphological characteristics of a form of a verb are rarely associated with a simple value or, if one likes, with a unique value, or, in other words, with a unique function. It is a fact that a linguistic corpus […] usually comprises a great number of functions because the number of forms is lower than the distinctive grammatical ideas.’

Nordahl (1969) deems unacceptable any approach to the problem of the Subjunctive that would be based on any single principles such as a one form-one meaning relationship: Que la définition du subjonctif soit unitaire, dualiste, tripartite ou pluraliste, ce n’est pas là que nous paraît résider l’intérêt principal. L’essentiel, bien entendu, c’est que la doctrine corresponde à la réalité manifestée dans le système linguistique, laquelle se trouve sur « le plan confus des faits de la parole » (Moignet). […] La vive satisfaction linguistique qu’est la recherche d’un principe absolu avec l’atteinte éventuelle de la vérité, absolue et une, et la profonde satisfaction philosophique que doit être la contemplation des abstractions pures sur le plan de la langue, nous paraissent seulement possibles comme le résultat d’un long travail dans le domaine des réalités, et aucunement acceptables comme théorie de base. (Nordahl 1969 : 13–14)

15

16


‘The main interest, as it seems to us, is not whether the definition of the Subjunctive might be unitary, dualist, tripartite or pluralist. The essential, of course, is that the theory would fit the reality, manifested in the linguistic system, which is at “the vague level of the facts of speech” (Moignet). […] The intense linguistic satisfaction of the search for one absolute principle followed by getting one absolute truth and the deep philosophical satisfaction of the contemplation of pure abstractions at the level of language, seem to us possible only as the result of long work in the domain of realities, and are in no way acceptable as basic theory.’

Blücher’s hierarchy shows that functionalists (Cohen 1965; De Boer 1947; Gougenheim 1965, 1969; Nordahl 1969; Touratier 1996) do not argue that the Subjunctive is entirely arbitrary, contrary to what has previously been claimed by advocates of the syntactic approach. The common point of functional research is the distinction between the required Subjunctive, on the one hand, and the Subjunctive, optionally used by the speaker, on the other. The functional value of the Subjunctive in the sentence is determined by whether or not this mood can alternate with other French moods. Touratier (1996) states the following on this matter: […] si l’on tient compte du fonctionnement du subjonctif pour définir son éventuelle valeur, il importe de distinguer nettement et radicalement deux cas de figure : d’une part, les subjonctifs qui ne commutent avec rien et qui par conséquent ne correspondent pas à un choix significatif du locuteur, puisque celui-ci est obligé de les employer; et d’autre part les subjonctifs qui commutent avec zéro et correspondent ainsi à un choix du locuteur. Il est certain que seuls ces derniers sont susceptibles de représenter un morphème, puisque seuls ces derniers signifient expressément quelque chose. (Touratier 1996 : 166–167) ‘If one takes into account the functioning of the Subjunctive in order to define its possible value, it is important to distinguish clearly and radically between two cases. On the one hand, the Subjunctive which alternates with nothing and, consequently, does not correspond to a significant choice of the speaker because the speaker has to use this mood; and on the other hand, the Subjunctive which alternates with zero and corresponds to the free choice of the speaker. It is certain that only the latter is able to represent a morpheme because only the latter means something.’

The required Subjunctive appears in nominal and adverbial clauses. In these clauses, the speaker’s choice of mood is said to be limited, and the Subjunctive itself is said to be required lexically or syntactically. The required Subjunctive is viewed either as a grammatical pleonasm or redundancy (Cohen 1965: 34), or as a grammatical constraint (Brunot 1965: 826, 841–842, 866; Gougenheim 1969: 191–202; Touratier 1996: 171–172). The Subjunctive, optionally used by the speakers, appears in clauses where the speaker is said to have free choice of mood. These are


so-called relative clauses, as in examples (4)–(5) above, where the Subjunctive alternates with the Indicative, or simple sentences, as in example (9), taken from Antigone by Anouilh (1963), where the Subjunctive is said to perform the function of the Imperative. (4) Je cherche une personne qui sache (S) l’anglais. (Blücher 1979 : 31) ‘I’m looking for somebody who might (S) know [sache] English.’ (5) Je cherche une personne qui sait (I) l’anglais. (Blücher 1979 : 31) ‘I’m looking for somebody who knows (I) [sait] English.’ (9) Antigone, demande d’une petite voix. – Je voudrais m’asseoir un peu, s’il vous plaît. Le Garde, après un temps de réflexion. – C’est bon, qu’elle s’asseye (S). (Anouilh 1963 : 662) ‘Antigone. I should like to sit down, if you please. A pause, as the First Guard thinks it over. First Guard. Let her sit (S) [s’asseye] down.’ (Anouilh 1958: 26)

While some functionalists (Cohen 1965; Brunot 1965; Gougenheim 1969; Regula 1936, 1966a, b; Touratier 1996) argue that the required Subjunctive is a meaningless form, others (De Boer 1947; Imbs 1953; Wartburg & Zumthor 1973) do not share this opinion. According to Regula (1936, 1966a), there are two Subjunctives. The Subjunctive in the main clause and in simple sentences is modal and dynamic, while the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause is “a-modal” and “a-dynamic”. It is used only to comment on the content of the main clause. Von Wartburg & Zumthor (1973: 218) also indicate that the Subjunctive in a simple sentence or in the main clause has a stronger modal value than in the subordinate clause. In the latter, the use of the Subjunctive is determined by syntactic constraints. On a pu, avec raison, voir dans le subjonctif des verbes subordonnés un véritable « mode de la dépendance », d’emploi obligatoire dès que le lien de dépendance de la subordonnée par rapport à la principale devient assez fort. (Von Wartburg & Zumthor 1973 : 223) ‘One could justifiably see in the subjunctive of the subordinated verbs a true “mood of dependency”, of compulsory use when the dependency of the subordinate clause upon the main clause becomes strong enough.’

However, they disagree with those researchers who state that the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause is meaningless and arbitrary. Von Wartburg & Zumthor (ibid: 223) claim that the explanation for the use of the required Subjunctive can be found in the history of French when mood in the subordinate clause had

17

18


strong modal values. In Contemporary French, however, the Subjunctive is used only for two functions in the subordinate clause: to indicate (a) the domain of the existential and (b) the domain of the postulated. According to von Wartburg & Zumthor (1973: 224–230), the Subjunctive of the existential refers to the realized or real processes whose reality, however, remains questioned. The Subjunctive of the existential follows verbs of uncertainty (douter ‘to doubt’) and negation (nier ‘to deny’), negation in the main clause, emotive and impersonal verbs and expressions. It is used as well in temporal, causal, concessive and certain relative clauses. The Subjunctive of the postulated (ibid: 230–232) expresses the process as being an object of a desire or an order, i.e. of what is still realizable. It is used after verbs of command (vouloir ‘to want’) or in final and consecutive clauses. De Boer (1947) believes that the distinction between the Subjunctive of the main clause and the Subjunctive of the subordinate clause does not solve the problem. He focuses his research on the subordination of this mood. De Boer views the Subjunctive as a sign of subordination, based on the degree of the psychological dependence on a verb in the main clause. He writes the following: Il y a, en français moderne, deux subjonctifs très différents l’un de l’autre. Le premier se rencontre là où le verbe est psychologiquement indépendant, le second se trouve là où le verbe représente un certain degré de dépendance psychologique par rapport à l’idée exprimée dans la principale. Le premier de ces deux subjonctifs exprime toujours une nuance volontive, le second est le mode du second plan, exprimant la dépendance, la subordination psychologique du verbe en question. (De Boer 1947 : 245) ‘Contemporary French has two very different Subjunctives. The first is used where the verb is psychologically independent; the second is used where the verb represents a certain degree of psychological dependence on the idea expressed by the main clause. The first of these two Subjunctives always expresses a “volitive” nuance; the second is the mood of the second plan, expressing the dependence, the psychological subordination on the verb in question.’

De Boer represents the degree of dependence of the subordinate clause on the main clause as a seesaw relationship. According to De Boer, the primary function of the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause is to be a mood of background. It is used to emphasize that the subordinate clause expresses a secondary, psychologically dependent idea. Therefore, the degree of subordination between the main clause and the subordinate clause has to be high enough to use the Subjunctive. De Boer’s seesaw relationship is illustrated in Figure 1. Here, a is the main clause, b is the subordinate clause and the line α–β is the degree of dependence of b on a. The longer the line α–β is, the higher the psychological dependence of b on a is, the more the use of the Subjunctive is justi-


a

α

b β

Figure 1. The “seesaw” relationship of De Boer

fied in the subordinate clause (De Boer 1947: 253–255). De Boer uses the seesaw relationship to account for both the required Subjunctive and for the Subjunctive, optionally used by the speaker. According to De Boer, the required Subjunctive is based on the same seesaw relationship as the optionally used Subjunctive with the only difference: the required Subjunctive has changed into a syntactic constraint. According to the research of Imbs (1953), the major function of the Subjunctive is to express the modality of a sentence, considered the union of the semantic values and grammatical forms of its component parts. As previously stated, the Subjunctive appears mostly in the complex sentence that Imbs views as “une structure syntaxique bipolaire” (Imbs 1953: 47) ‘a two-dimensional syntactic structure’. According to Imbs, there is a horizontal and a vertical correlation between the component parts of the main clause and the subordinate clause. From the horizontal perspective, the modality of the subordinate clause correlates with the modality of the main clause with which the subordinate clause depends grammatically. From the vertical perspective, the meanings of the component parts of the main clause depend on the modality of the subordinate clause. For example, according to Imbs, the verb dire ‘to say’ in the main clause has different meanings, ‘to say’ or ‘to tell’, depending on whether it is followed by the Indicative or the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause. The minimal pair of examples (10)–(11) illustrates this. I contend that in this minimal pair the meaning of the verb dire ‘to say; to tell’ remains invariable. What changes is the communicative purpose for which an occurrence has been presented. In example (10), the Indicative is used to assert the occurrence of the “coming”, while in example (11) the Subjunctive is used to cast doubt on the “coming”. (10) Il dit que je viens (I) tard. ‘He says that I come (I) [viens] late.’ (11) Il dit que je vienne (S) tard. ‘He tells that I should (S) come [vienne] late.’

According to Imbs, on the one hand, the relationships between a correlating element (Imbs’s terme corrélatif) of the main clause and the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause are complementary. The Subjunctive completes the modal nuance,

19

20 Expressing the Same by the Different

implied by a correlating element in the main clause. On the other hand, these relationships are opposite. A correlating element expresses modality implicitly, by its semantic value, while the Subjunctive expresses modality explicitly, by the specific morpheme of the Subjunctive. In other words, as stated by Imbs, correlating elements of the main clause provide the Subjunctive forms with a semantic content. Parler d’un subjonctif de doute, c’est donc énoncer qu’un subjonctif est employé en corrélation avec un autre terme qui lui donne cette coloration sémantique particulière. (Imbs 1953 : 48) ‘Speaking about the Subjunctive of doubt means stating that the Subjunctive is used in correlation with another element which gives this specific semantic coloration to the Subjunctive.’

Similarly to Guillaume (1970), Imbs says that the Indicative represents the process as an actualized reality. The Subjunctive is consistently used when a related fact is not entirely actualized or when its actualization is not in the speaker’s focus (Imbs 1953: 49). According to Imbs, this happens in the following cases: a. The process is considered to be not entirely actualized (e.g., the use of the Subjunctive of desire, of supposition, of doubt, of anteriority after temporal conjunctions avant que ‘before’, jusqu’à ce que ‘until’). b. The process refers to a general or undetermined process (e.g., with expressions quelque … que ‘however…’, soit que … soit que ‘whether… or…’, etc.). c. The speaker’s interest is shifted from the reality of the process to its subjective or affective appreciation by the speaker (e.g., the use of the Subjunctive after emotive verbs). While advocating the Saussurean principle of linguistic oppositions, Imbs claims, nevertheless, that the narrowing of the uses of the Subjunctive down to a single meaning violates the linguistic reality (Imbs 1953: 55). Nordahl (1969) follows Imbs’s idea of modal syntagms as the union of correlating elements (verbs, adjectives, nouns) or syntactic structures in the main clause and mood in the subordinate clause. She distinguishes three systems of syntagms with the Subjunctive used in nominal clauses: the volitive system, the subjective system and the dubitative system. The volitive system includes expressions of the speaker’s desire that require the use of the Subjunctive. The subjective system includes expressions of the speaker’s emotions that strongly favor the Subjunctive. The Indicative can also be used, depending on the syntactic structure of modal syntagms. The dubitative system includes expressions of the speaker’s doubt or uncertainty with strong alternation between the Subjunctive and the Indicative. Their choice depends on the meaning of a correlating element as well


as on the use of negation or interrogation in the main clause. Though Nordahl provides a thorough study, based on multiple examples, the chief purpose of her analysis is to show where and how the Subjunctive is used rather than to explain its meaning and the reasons of its use. My disagreement with the functional approach is based on the following arguments: 1. As I have previously stated, one of the major points of divergence between sign-oriented theories and sentence-oriented theories is the principle of “invariance versus variation” (Tobin 1995: 14). Sentence-oriented theories take a specific communicated idea (sentence) as the basic unit of their analyses and discuss its meanings, inferred from the meanings of its component parts. The number of possible sentences is much greater than the number of their component parts. Therefore, each component part can supposedly acquire different meanings, depending on the context where it appears. In other words, the distribution of a form is externally deduced, i.e. as being influenced by a lexical, syntactic, pragmatic or stylistic context. However, a meaning that depends on a context is evidence of the arbitrariness of the structure of language. Sign-oriented approaches postulate the invariant meaning of a sign and apply this meaning in different contexts to different kinds of messages. According to sign-oriented approaches, the distribution of a sign is internally motivated, i.e. it is influenced by its invariant meaning. Guillaume (1970) says the following on the linguistic sign and its status in linguistic analysis: La tendance du langage est d’obtenir, à partir d’une seule et même forme psycho-phonétique, qui en soi ne change pas, sa position mentale en système étant déterminée une fois pour toutes, la diversité d’effets de sens dont elle se montre capable sans abandon de sa nature essentielle, invariante. Si nombreuses que puissent être les conséquences du signe linguistique, elles trouvent leur limite dans l’unité, maintenue au fond de la pensée, de sa condition. C’est comme condition une que le signe linguistique existe dans la langue; et comme véhicule de conséquences variées qu’il se manifeste dans le langage (dans le discours). Une tâche du linguiste-grammairien est de faire apparaître l’unité sous la diversité des conséquences produites. (Guillaume 1970, L’architectonique du temps, p. 37–38, notes) ‘The tendency of language is to obtain from the same single psycho-phonetic form which does not change in itself, its mental position in the system being determined once and for all, the diversity of senses which it can have without giving up its essential, invariant nature. Whatever the consequences of linguistic sign may be, they are limited by the unity, maintained deep in thought, in its condition. The linguistic sign exists in

21

22


language as the condition of one, and as a conveyer of various consequences that are manifested in language (in speech). The task of the grammarian is to show the unity under the diversity of the produced consequences.’

Following Guillaume, Stefanini (1992) attaches great importance to the postulation of a single meaning of the Subjunctive which would explain all its uses in French as opposed to the simple listing of its uses. Faire la somme des emplois de ce mode, appeler valeur primaire le résidu obtenu en soustrayant la signification particulière à chaque emploi n’aboutit pas à grand’chose. La méthode qui tient le compte avec une rigueur au moins égale de tous les faits constatables mais pour les dépasser, pour retrouver, grâce à eux, pour reconstruire le système qui, en langue, les rend tous possibles, non seulement permet de les expliquer vraiment, mais encore de découvrir les virtualités de la forme étudiée. (Stefanini 1992 : 34) ‘To summarize the uses of this mood, to call primary value the residue, obtained by extracting a signification, particular to each use, leads to a mere nothing. The method which consistently takes into consideration all the observed facts in order to dominate them, to find, to rebuild the system, based on them, which makes all of them possible in language, not only allows one to really explain them, but also to discover the resources of the studied form.’

2. My analysis is based on the Columbia School principles of invariance, “human efficiency” and “memory limitations” (cf. Tobin 1995: 12). Therefore, I believe that the alleged meaninglessness of the Subjunctive contradicts the characteristics of human beings who avoid meaningless forms in language because of limited human memory as well as out of “economy of effort” (Diver 1995: 44). 3. That a form is favored in some contexts and disfavored in others is a descriptive fact. It does not explain why a form is used as it is, let alone that the notions grammatical pleonasm, redundancy or grammatical constraint are neither a linguistic fact nor an explanation. I completely agree with Soutet (2000) who does not equate grammatical constraint with an explanation for the use of a form. […] expliquer l’emploi d’une forme (qu’il s’agisse du subjonctif ou d’autres formes) par une « servitude grammaticale » (quelle que soit, par ailleurs, la formulation choisie) est, stricto sensu, une non-explication. (Soutet 2000 : 129) ‘[…] to explain the use of a form (whether it is about the Subjunctive or other forms) by a “grammatical constraint” (whichever the chosen formulation may be) is, strictly speaking, a non-explanation.’


1.4 The functional approach of Martinet In the debate about the French Subjunctive, the functional approach, elaborated by Martinet (1979) and his successors (cf. Menanteau 1986), occupies a special place. According to Martinet, the task of functional grammar is to show how native speakers use language in communication and how the units of language function. His view of the function of language is close to what Diver and his students call the communicative orientation of language or the communicative factor (cf. Diver 1995; Reid 1983 [1979]; Tobin 1990, 1995), i.e. the idea that language is a communicative device, composed of signals and their invariant meanings. Martinet also applies the Saussurean conception of the linguistic sign, which he calls monème, as pairing of a form (Saussure’s signifiant) and a meaning (Saussure’s signifié). Paradigmatically, Martinet presents classes of verbs as syntagms or a group of lexical and grammatical monèmes that share a set of distinctive features or modalities: Tense, Mood, Aspect and Voice. One syntagm of the verb differs from another in the modalities that it signals or does not signal. Martinet summarizes these modalities in a table and provides an example of each modality that a syntagm signals. The absence of a modality in the paradigm of a syntagm is designated by zeros. Soit le syntagme subjonctif (qu’il) chante; il se distingue des autres syntagmes qui présentent comme lui le monème « subjonctif » par l’absence du monème de temps « passé » qui caractérise le syntagme subjonctif passé (qu’il) chantât, par l’absence du monème « parfait » qui caractérise le syntagme subjonctif parfait (qu’il) ait chanté et par l’absence d’un des monèmes de voix qui caractériserait le syntagme subjonctif passif (qu’il) soit chanté ou le syntagme subjonctif réfléchi (que ça) se chante. D’où, pour ce syntagme, les zéros dans les colonnes des temps, des aspects et des voix. (Martinet 1979 : 101) ‘Let (qu’il) chante ‘(that he) should sing’ be the Subjunctive syntagm. It differs from the other syntagms, which mean “the Subjunctive”, in the absence of the temporal meaning “Past” that characterizes the Past Subjunctive (qu’il) chantât ‘(that he) might sing’, in the absence of the meaning “Perfect” that characterizes the Perfect Subjunctive (qu’il) ait chanté ‘(that he) might have sung’ and in the absence of one of the meanings of voice that would characterize the Passive Subjunctive (qu’il) soit chanté ‘(that it) should be sung’ or the Reflexive Subjunctive (que ça) se chante ‘(that it) should be sung’. From which, this syntagm has zeros in the columns of the tenses, the aspects and the voices.’

According to Martinet, a syntagm of the verb is treated as a monème of mood, if it signals Mood explicitly. If a syntagm does not imply (is not associated with) a modal meaning, it cannot be viewed as a monème of mood. In Martinet’s opinion, the Indicative has neither a formal mark (Martinet’s marque formelle) nor a

23

24


distinctive meaning (Martinet’s valeur distincte) of Mood. Therefore, there is no monème Indicative as such. Instead of that, what is traditionally referred to as the Indicative corresponds to the absence of modal specification or an empty monème (Martinet’s monème nu). It represents an occurrence as being set in reality. In contrast, the Subjunctive signals Mood explicitly, by its morphemes. Therefore, it is viewed as a monème that represents an occurrence as a conception of mind (Martinet’s conception de l’esprit), i.e. as nonexistent in reality. Thus, according to Martinet, the opposition between the Indicative and the Subjunctive is the opposition of the real, expressed by the empty monème (the Indicative), versus the imagined, expressed by the monème Subjunctive. Though Martinet starts with the Saussurean sign-oriented principles, he finally returns to sentence-oriented analysis. In Martinet’s opinion, the Subjunctive is infrequent in simple sentences (Martinet’s énoncés autonomes or prédicats) because they attribute an occurrence to reality, which contradicts the meaning of the monème Subjunctive. Therefore, the Subjunctive is used mostly in subordinate clauses (Martinet’s predicatoïdes) where it depends on lexical elements or syntactic structures of the main clause (Martinet’s noyau). Martinet does not think that the Subjunctive is a mood of dependence, but he speaks about its functional weakness. It is manifested by homonymy between the forms of the Subjunctive and those of the empty verb (the Indicative) with which native speakers are faced in the process of communication. That is why, according to Martinet, the Sub. According to Martinet (1979: 11–12), the empty monème comprises not only the Indicative. The traditional Singular and the traditional Present Tense are also part of the empty monème because they have neither a form nor a meaning in French. The Singular indicates the absence of plural, and the Present Tense indicates the absence of a specified tense. . The Columbia School notion of communicative orientation or communicative factor explains the overlap of the Subjunctive and the Indicative. This overlap concerns especially the class of regular verbs with -er infinitive, while the distinction is maintained for the class of irregular verbs with -ir, -re and -oir infinitives. Winters (1989) stated the following on the matter: The lack of systematic morphological distinctness has been used to argue that the subjunctive is no longer a semantically distinct category in French. It must be pointed out, however, that such an argument is at least counterbalanced by the very clearly marked present subjunctive forms of all the most frequently used irregular verbs including [avoir] ‘to have’, [être] ‘to be’, [aller] ‘to go’, [faire] ‘to make’, [savoir] ‘to know’, [pouvoir] ‘to be able’. (Winters 1989: 704) The communicative factor indicates that language is based on oppositions which allow us to create maximum communication (cf. Tobin 1990, 1995, 1997a). Tobin (1993a) applies the concepts of Process and Result to explain the various form classes of infinitives in French. According to his analysis, the -ir infinitive suffix means the result or totality of the process, the -re/-oir infinitive suffixes mean any part of the process but not its totality, while the -er infinitive suffix


junctive is often replaced by the empty verb or is viewed as either a formal constraint or a stylistic device. L’homonymie fréquente entre le subjonctif et le verbe nu fait que, bien souvent, on ne sait pas auquel des deux on a affaire […]. Les locuteurs en arrivent à ne pas avoir un sens exact de la valeur du subjonctif. Ils réagissent de façon différente dans le sens de la simplification et de la régularisation d’un système un peu trop subtil, et de l’élimination, sinon toujours de la forme, du moins d’une opposition mal maîtrisée. (Martinet 1979 : 127) ‘The frequent homonymy between the Subjunctive and the empty verb results in, very often, one not knowing with which of them one deals […]. It turns out that speakers do not understand the exact meaning of the Subjunctive. They react in a different manner and either simplify and regulate a very subtle system or eliminate, if not the form, at least the uncontrollable opposition.’

As previously stated, Martinet shares the Saussurean sign-oriented principles only in part and finally returns to the sentence-oriented principles. Therefore, his solution to the problem of French mood represents a mixture of sign-oriented and sentence-oriented principles, manifested by the following: 1. As pointed out by Reid (1974), Martinet provides no reason for the reliance upon the notion of function in his research. Reliance upon the notion of ‘function’ in the absence of established signifiés is simply an admission of failure at having isolated the correct form-meaning correspondences; reliance upon ‘function’ in the presence of established signifiés is a manœuvre to introduce traditional grammar through the back door. (Reid 1974: 43)

2. Columbia School theory also appeals to abstract zero (Ø) signals that designate the absence of a feature, as in “the English singular versus plural opposition: [boy + Ø] (sing) versus [boy + -s] (pl)” (Tobin 1995: 32). However, in means the beginning of the process. In other words, the verbs traditionally said to belong to the group with -ir, -re and -oir infinitive suffixes make a specific claim that the encoder perceives an occurrence from the point of view of its result. The verbs traditionally said to belong to the group with -er infinitive suffix rather imply the process. As pointed out by Reid (1983 [1979]: 185-187), changes in state, i.e. the result, attracts our attention more than states, i.e. the process. From this, I infer that in the ongoing communication, forms that emphasize the result deserve the encoder’s and the decoder’s attention more than forms that de-emphasize the result or emphasize the process. Therefore, it becomes more important to keep the communicative distinctions between the Subjunctive and the Indicative for the verbs with -ir, -re and -oir infinitive suffixes that mean Result rather than for the verbs with -er infinitive suffix that mean Process.

25


Columbia School theory, an abstract zero (Ø) signal has a concrete invariant meaning. Instead of that, Martinet’s empty monème has neither a form nor a distinctive meaning. This contradicts Saussure’s statement that meaning can be attributed to an implicit (zero) signal that does not have an acoustic realization (cf. Saussure 2001 [1916]: 466). On voit donc qu’un signe matériel n’est pas nécessaire pour exprimer une idée; la langue peut se contenter de l’opposition de quelque chose avec rien […] (Saussure 2001 [1916] : 123–124) ‘So it is not even necessary to have any material sign in order to give expression to an idea: the language may be content simply to contrast something with nothing.’ (Saussure 1983 [1916]: 86)

3. Martinet’s statement that the Indicative does not indicate Mood explicitly, as opposed to the Subjunctive, results from the invariant meaning of the Indicative. I claim that the Indicative designates an occurrence in the larger sense, while the Subjunctive designates a specific alternative to an occurrence. The Indicative’s invariant meaning Occurrence is more vague and less complex than the Subjunctive’s invariant meaning Alternative to Occurrence. This allows the encoder to use the Indicative in “more potential discourse messages” with more “possible syntactic and pragmatic functions” (Tobin 1995: 23). Moreover, the major communicative purpose of the use of the Indicative (as well as of the Singular and the Present Tense) is to emphasize the normal state of affairs. This would be impossible if this mood were identified with a deviation from the norm.

1.5 Cognitive approach Cognitive Grammar, founded by Langacker (1987, 2004), considers the structure of language in its interaction with human cognition. It attaches importance to cognitive psychological processes when explaining the structure of language and the use of linguistic forms. Langacker (1987) states the following on the matter: Language is an integral part of human cognition. An account of linguistic structure should therefore articulate with what is known about cognitive processing in general, regardless of whether one posits a special language “module” […], or

. For example, in the system of number in English, manifested by the singular versus plural opposition, an entity with a singular (zero) suffix means One, while an entity with a plural (-s) suffix means More Than One (cf. Diver 1987; Reid 1991).


an innate faculté de langage. If such a faculty exists, it is nevertheless embedded in the general psychological matrix […] (Langacker 1987: 12–13)

and later: Cognitive linguistics and CG [Cognitive Grammar] are also “cognitive” in the sense that, insofar as possible, linguistic structure is analyzed in terms of more basic systems and abilities (e.g. perception, attention, categorization) from which it cannot be dissociated. (Langacker 2004: 22)

Unlike previous sentence-oriented approaches, Cognitive Grammar assumes the centrality of meaning to all linguistic concerns (Langacker 1987: 12). This theory postulates the conception of a symbolic structure as “the pairing between a form (i.e. a phonological structure) and a meaning (a conceptualization, in the broadest sense)” (Langacker 2004: 21). In Cognitive Grammar, the division into lexicon, morphology and syntax is considered artificial and arbitrary because all of them form a continuum of symbolic structures (Langacker 1987: 2–3). A Cognitive Grammar meaning is a mental phenomenon such as thoughts, concepts, perceptions, images, and mental experience (ibid: 98). Therefore, Cognitive Grammar considers conventional uses10 of linguistic elements part of their linguistic meanings. Since an element has various conventional uses, Cognitive Grammar meanings are polysemous. According to Langacker (2004: 41), “the usage-based conception” of a linguistic meaning allows Cognitive Grammar “to handle the problem of distribution” of linguistic elements. Polysemous Cognitive Grammar meanings represent a network of interrelated “familiar and conventionally established values, or “senses”, often centered on a prototype” (ibid: 44). The prototype represents the most typical meaning around which other senses of an element are internally organized by the human mind. Langacker (1987) defines the prototype in the following way: Prototype – That unit in a schematic network which is naturally most salient, most often thought of, most likely to be chosen as representative of the category. In a generalized sense, the term is also adopted for the standard in a categorizing relationship […] (Langacker 1987: 492)

10. Despite “an extremely wide variety” (Langacker 2004: 46) of potential uses of a linguistic element, only some of them are conventional. As stated by Langacker (ibid: 45), a use becomes conventional “within a speech community” after the specific interpretations of a use – “originally due to speakers’ interpretive efforts in context – recur with sufficient frequency that they become “entrenched” in the minds of individuals”.

27

28


A prototypical meaning has several non-prototypical meanings. They are extended from the prototype and can be understood by their similarity to the prototype. In other words, the prototype set or model represents a kind of hierarchy. [Within this hierarchy], prototypical instances are full, central members of the category, whereas other instances form a gradation from central to peripheral depending on how far and in what ways they deviate from the prototype. (Langacker 1987: 17)

Besides the notion of prototype, a Cognitive Grammar network includes a schema. It embodies “the abstract commonality” of “a wider range of values” (Langacker 2004: 45) of an element, being compatible, therefore, with all the members of a given prototype set. The schema is related to the prototype by various subschemas, “or abstractions of a lesser generality which capture certain partial regularities or groupings of meanings within the set” (Winters 1993: 272). Winters (1989, 1993) deals with the French Subjunctive within the framework of Cognitive Grammar. She proposes an explanatory theory of why the Subjunctive is used by native speakers. Winters does not distinguish between the meaningless (required) and meaningful (optional) uses of the Subjunctive. She states that all the appearances of the Subjunctive in language are meaningful, even “where the expression of uncertainty or of emotional judgment seems to reside solely in the trigger” (Winters 1989: 727). Winters presents the semantic structure of the Contemporary French Subjunctive as a radial set “in which some members better exemplify the set than others” (Winters 1993: 271). She groups various manifestations of the Subjunctive around the prototypical meaning of doubt. Winters identified this meaning by appealing to the intuition of native speakers who use expressions of doubt to explain the meaning of the Subjunctive. According to Winters (ibid: 275), the notion of doubt can also explain the increasing use of the Subjunctive in contexts where “the indicative is still the normative standard”. She means the use of the Subjunctive after the verb espérer ‘to hope’, as in example (12), or after the impersonal expression il est probable ‘probably’, as in example (13). Both examples have been cited by Grevisse (2001). (12) Le docteur répondit que c’était une chance sans doute et qu’il fallait espérer seulement que sa femme guérît (S). (Camus 1947b : 70) ‘The doctor agreed that it was lucky in a sense; but, he added, the great thing was that his wife should (S) recover [guérît].’ (Camus 1960 [1948]: 74) (13) Il est donc probable qu’en passant devant la cellule du Masque, il lui ait (S) parlé à travers la porte. (Pagnol, Masque de Fer, p. 146 cited in Grevisse 2001 : 1604)


‘It is therefore probable that he might (S) have spoken [ait parlé] to the Mask through the door while he was passing in front of his cell.’

Finally, as pointed out by Winters, the notion of doubt motivates other, peripheral meanings of the radial set: Within the framework of cognitive grammar, accordingly, the radial set emerges first from senses which, through various transformations (metaphoric, metonymic, etc.) extend to other senses. Not all members of the set can generate others in this way […]. Here too, ‘doubt’ fits the needs of the prototype in that the other subjunctive meanings extend from it. (Winters 1993: 275–276)

Winters (1993) postulates {SUBJECTIVITY} as an abstract (schematic) meaning of the Subjunctive. According to Winters, it can also generate other subgroups of the Subjunctive meanings, being “compatible with all members of the radial set” (ibid: 276). The two meanings, doubt and {SUBJECTIVITY}, are indirectly related to each other. The gap between them stems from the fact that “the schematic and prototypical meanings represent different cognitive functions” (ibid). The prototypical meaning doubt results from the “categorization of all instances of the subjunctive individually” (ibid: 277). The schematic meaning {SUBJECTIVITY} results from the human “ability to abstract from differences among items and to see them as a single unit” (ibid). Kirsner (1993: 103–107, 2004: 2) and Langacker (1987: 4, 2004: 42–44) point out a number of similarities between Cognitive Grammar and Columbia School theory. Langacker (2004: 42–43), in particular, provides the following list of similarities: 1. There is a common desire to describe language – and to describe each individual language – in its own terms, rather than imposing on it an elaborate set of preconceptions. 2. They are both functionalist approaches concerned with the communicative role of language. 3. Differences in form are not taken as arbitrary, but as having some communicative import that needs to be discovered and characterized. 4. In contrast to some functionalist approaches, they are both interested in cognitive issues and attempt to characterize meanings. 5. In both cases, in fact, meaning is seen as the key to understanding grammar. 6. Both recognize the need to posit meanings that are highly abstract (or schematic). Despite these similarities, “areas of disagreement” (Kirsner 2004: 4) between Cognitive Grammar and Columbia School theory remain:

29

30


1. The major difference between Cognitive Grammar and Columbia School theory is in definitions of language, advocated by each approach. Cognitive Grammar defines language broadly. This means that not only linguistic units such as words or parts of words with their highly abstract (schematic) meanings are considered part of language. For Cognitive Grammar, specific senses, extended from these schematic meanings, “entrenched in the minds of speakers and conventional in a speech community” (Langacker 2004: 47), are also part of language. […] the only elements ascribable to a linguistic system are: (i) semantic, phonological, and symbolic structures that are (part of) overtly occurring expressions (hence directly apprehended); (ii) abstractions (schematizations) of permitted structures; and (iii) categorizing relationships between permitted structures (e.g. the relationship between a schema and a specific structure that instantiates it). (Langacker 2004: 22)

Columbia School theory defines language narrowly. It excludes from this definition “both the interpretive process and the extended semantic value it creates, which would not be called a “meaning” but just a “message” (Langacker 2004: 47).11 2. The major task of Cognitive Grammar is to find cognitive categories that would adequately describe the structure of language and explain the use of linguistic forms. Cognitive Grammar starts from the assumption that human cognitive processes are very complex. It elaborates a multi-level semantic network that includes a prototype, a schema and various subschemas. The question is to what extent the postulated semantic model is psychologically real “outside of the linguist’s analysis” (Kirsner 2002: 352). All the cognitive categories that are the object of study of Cognitive Grammar precede linguistic analysis. They are not motivated by the use of linguistic forms, but are given in advance as facts. However, we know little about how the brain functions in cognition and what kind of process cognition basically is. On the other hand, the categories with which the Columbia School deals “are unknown at the outset and must be discovered by analysis”. “Their justification is their ability to explain actual occurrences of morphemes” (Huffman 1997 [1996]: 331). 3. Cognitive Grammar advocates polysemy, reflected by the multi-level prototype network. 11. This difference in terminology is reflected in “the characterization of the Columbia School as a “minimalist” linguistics versus Cognitive Grammar as a “maximalist” linguistics in Kirsner (1993: 81–82)” (Kirsner 2004: 2).


One striking feature of linguistic units of all sizes is that they are, most often, polysemous, with diverse meanings which cannot be related one to another by any finite list of necessary and sufficient features. (Winters 1993: 271)

Columbia School theory strongly opposes polysemous meanings. They are viewed as part of the realization of the language in communication, and not as part of the language itself. Instead of that, Columbia School theory postulates relatively abstract invariant meanings that account for all uses of their signs. The postulation of single invariant meanings is required by the Columbia School’s commitment to consider language a communicative tool. The one form-one meaning relationship conflicts with the conception of polysemy because polysemous linguistic units do not contribute to better communication and cooperation between native speakers. Polysemy creates an excessive communicative burden of remembering all the possible uses of a form and inferring which particular meaning has been exploited for each specific context. Ninety-nine uses of the dative in Greek Grammar of Smyth (1920), cited by Huffman (1997 [1996]: 16–17, 263), illustrate this. Moreover, those who advocate polysemy have not decided themselves how many meanings should suffice to embrace all syntactic and pragmatic functions of a unit. I would not deny that the network model faces real problems at both the descriptive and theoretical levels. Clear grounds for positing a specific number of distinct senses are not always evident. It seems quite likely, in fact, that the network metaphor is seriously misleading, precisely because it is too discrete. (Langacker 2004: 48)

According to Huffman (1997 [1996]: 16), the major problem of the postulation of multiple meanings is “that it yields a mere photocopy of the facts, not a means for understanding them”. Columbia School theory views different uses of a sign “as different extralinguistic strategies for the use of a (monosemic) meaning rather than different (polysemous) meanings in themselves” (Kirsner 2004: 6). 4. Cognitive Grammar appeals to native speakers’ intuition to choose the most central prototypical and schematic meanings. Such meanings represent generalized discourse ideas of the most frequent uses of a form rather than the Saussurean invariant meanings of linguistic signs. As stated by ContiniMorava (1983): However all too often the decision as to what is “most common” depends not on any statistical observations of the use of a certain form, but rather on the degree

31

32


to which that use corresponds to one of the “favorite categories” of the traditional inventory. (Contini-Morava 1983: 35)

Invariant meanings, with which Columbia School theory deals, are part of the language itself and should not be confused with the use of the language. Tobin (1995) points out the following on the matter: Sentence and discourse messages and the functions of their component parts are not invariant meanings. In other words, invariant meanings are not equivalent to sentence or dictionary or discourse messages nor to the syntactic, logical, or pragmatic communicative discourse functions and exploitations of this code which are all inferred from and motivated by invariant meanings of the code. (Tobin 1995: 29)

1.6 Psycho-semantic approach Damourette & Pichon (1968 [1936]), Le Bidois (1968a, b), Van der Molen (1923) consider the opposition of the Indicative versus the Subjunctive to be the linguistic actualization of psychological nuances. Just as the functionalists, these researchers claim that the Subjunctive expresses the unreal or the doubtful as opposed to the Indicative that expresses the real and the certain. While agreement is reached about the meaning of the Indicative, the debate is held about psychological nuances that the Subjunctive expresses. Even when the use of this mood is attributed to one nuance, it still represents a contextual message outside of language rather than a linguistic meaning invariably paired with its signal. According to Van der Molen (1923), the Indicative conveys the objective psychological attitude of the speaker towards an idea, expressed by a sentence. This mood presents an occurrence as a simple fact: En appliquant cette définition à l’indicatif, on constatera que le sujet parlant, en se servant de ce mode, prend vis-à-vis de l’action une attitude neutre ou objective; il envisage l’action comme un simple fait, qu’il énonce sans révéler les sentiments de son âme. (Van der Molen 1923 : 16) ‘By applying this definition to the Indicative, one will note that the speaker, using this mood, adopts a neutral or objective attitude towards the action. He considers the action a simple fact, which he states without revealing his feelings.’

The Subjunctive, as stated by Van der Molen, conveys subjective nuances in a sentence because this is a mood of subjectivity: […] l e s u b j o n c t i f e s t l e m o d e d e l a s u b j e c t i v i t é . Ce mode a pour effet de teindre l’action de cette nuance subjective qui est inhérente au mode


subjonctif, partout et toujours, aussi bien dans la proposition principale que dans la subordonnée. (Van der Molen 1923 : 36) ‘The Subjunctive is the mood of subjectivity. This mood dyes the action with this subjective nuance which is inherent in Subjunctive mood, everywhere and always, both in the main clause and in the subordinate clause.’

G. & R. Le Bidois (1968a, b) propose a very similar conception of the opposition of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. According to G. & R. Le Bidois, the Indicative presents an occurrence in an objective way: […] il [le subjonctif] la présente seulement comme un concept de l’esprit où le cœur n’intervient pas. Ainsi l’indicatif est un mode exclusivement intellectuel, et, par là, tout à fait différent des autres. (Le Bidois 1968a : 492) ‘The Subjunctive presents it [an occurrence] only as a concept of mind without the intervention of heart. Therefore, the Indicative is an exclusively intellectual mood and, thus, totally different from the others.’

They consider the Subjunctive a mood of psychic energy, manifested in expressions of desire, purpose, doubt, emotion or eventuality: S’il fallait nécessairement apposer à un mode si complexe une étiquette simplifiée, il semble que ce pût être celle-ci : mode de l’énergie psychique. (Le Bidois 1968a : 501) ‘If it was necessary to label such a complex mood with a simplified label, it seems that it could be this one: mood of psychic energy.’

Brunot & Bruneau (1969: 321, 322) state that the meaning of the Subjunctive has narrowed in the history of French. Being a mood of unreality (Brunot & Bruneau’s non-réalité) in Old French, the Subjunctive expresses an occurrence that has been merely envisaged by mind (Brunot & Bruneau’s action simplement envisagée par l’esprit) in Contemporary French. According to Brunot & Bruneau (ibid: 321), the Contemporary French Subjunctive is a defective mood, used mostly in set syntactic expressions. It is disappearing from spoken language and turning into a snobbish mood of the academy (ibid: 517). Both authors claim that the Subjunctive is opposed to the Indicative that expresses a fulfilled action (Brunot & Bruneau’s action réalisée). However, this opposition is meaningful only in relative clauses, as in examples (4)–(5) above, because only here both moods are optionally used by the speaker. (4) Je cherche une personne qui sache (S) l’anglais. (Blücher 1979 : 31) ‘I’m looking for somebody who might (S) know [sache] English.’ (5) Je cherche une personne qui sait (I) l’anglais. (Blücher 1979 : 31) ‘I’m looking for somebody who knows (I) [sait] English.’

33

34


Damourette & Pichon (1968 [1936]) try to provide a unifying explanation for the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive moods. They give up the traditional notion of mood, which they redefine as a mœuf. Despite that, Damourette & Pichon focus their analysis on sentences in which they look for the meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive mœufs. The difference between the Indicative and the Subjunctive depends on whether a mœuf asserts facts or not. According to Damourette & Pichon, the Subjunctive is a mœuf of non-assertion or non-jugement (ibid: 482). It expresses non-asserted facts which the speaker does not perceive as really existing and about which he/she has not made any judgment. The Indicative is a mœuf of assertion or affirmation réelle (ibid: 602–603). It expresses facts whose reality is assumed by the speaker and about which he/she has made some judgment. The use of both mœufs can be attributed to the subject of the main verb (Damourette & Pichon’s protagoniste) or to the speaker (Damourette & Pichon’s locuteur). As stated by Damourette & Pichon, the Indicative is used when either the protagoniste or the locuteur assert (make judgments on) the reality of an occurrence. The Subjunctive is used when no judgments have been made either by the protagoniste or by the locuteur. Further, both authors apply the meanings of the Subjunctive and the Indicative to different clauses. In the Précis de Grammaire française, Grevisse (1961: 147–148, 204, 258–260, 265) assumes that the major function of the Subjunctive is to present an envisaged occurrence with a certain emotional impulse. In Bon usage (2001: 1265), his opinion is closer to that of Damourette & Pichon (1968 [1936]). The speaker uses the Subjunctive in order not to commit to the reality of the fact. Togeby (1982: 50, 59) has a similar opinion. According to him, the Subjunctive is a marked form that means non-jugement, while the Indicative is an unmarked and neutral form with an imprecise linguistic meaning: Systématiquement, l’indicatif est la forme extensive ou non-marquée, le subjonctif la forme intensive ou marquée. Sémantiquement, l’indicatif est par conséquent la forme neutre, tandis que le subjonctif a un sens particulier, qui est cependant très difficile à circonscrire. On dit souvent que l’indicatif énonce ou affirme, mais c’est plutôt l’intonation qui confère ce sens à une phrase. Le subjonctif met en suspens l’intonation ou l’affirmation d’une proposition. C’est le mode du non-jugement. (Togeby 1982 : 59) ‘Systematically, the Indicative is an extensive or unmarked form, and the Subjunctive is an intensive or marked form. Semantically, the Indicative is consequently a neutral form, while the Subjunctive has a particular meaning, which, however, is difficult to delimit. Sometimes, the Indicative is said to state or to assert, but it is more the intonation that gives this meaning to a sentence. The Subjunctive maintains the intonation or the assertion of a sentence in doubt. This is the mood of non-judgment.’


The psycho-semantic approach seems problematic at the following points: 1. Like other sentence-oriented approaches, the psycho-semantic approach (cf. Van der Molen 1923: 5) misinterprets the Saussurean slogan “observez ce qui se passe dans les langues d’aujourd’hui, dans le langage de tous les jours” ‘look at what happens in present-day languages, in everyday speech’ (Saussure 2001 [1916]: 252; Saussure 1983 [1916]: 183). It is understood as an appeal to seek meanings of linguistic forms in speech, namely, in sentences. However, what Saussure meant by this slogan was that one must deal both synchronically and diachronically only with communicatively motivated units that are found in langue vivante ‘modern language’. A variable sentence, which is said to express a shapeless and vague thought, is not an ideal unit of analysis as opposed to a precise sign with its invariant meaning. Psychologiquement, abstraction faite de son expression par les mots, notre pensée n’est qu’une masse amorphe et indistincte. Philosophes et linguistes se sont toujours accordés à reconnaître que, sans le secours des signes, nous serions incapables de distinguer deux idées d’une façon claire et constante. Prise en ellemême, la pensée est comme une nébuleuse où rien n’est nécessairement délimité. (Saussure 2001 [1916] : 155) ‘Psychologically, setting aside its expression in words, our thought is simply a vague, shapeless mass. Philosophers and linguists have always agreed that were it not for signs, we should be incapable of differentiating any two ideas in a clear and constant way. In itself, thought is like a swirling cloud, where no shape is intrinsically determinate.’ (Saussure 1983 [1916]: 110)

Therefore, according to Saussure, sentences are extra-linguistic units. They do not belong to the structure of language, but to its realization, whereas signs, i.e. signals and their invariant meanings are “fundamental theoretical categories of language” (Diver 1980: 3). 2. Both the Indicative and the Subjunctive meet, by and large, the truth criterion. As de Jonge (2001) justly observes: Speakers express, by definition, a vision on reality that is subjective and can only be taken as the version of reality he or she wants to get across to the hearer. The best proof of this is lying: all speakers are capable of lying, and I believe I am not saying anything absurd if I state that most lying will take place in indicative mood. Thus, occurrences expressed in indicative mood are not necessarily factual, but the effect on the hearer is intended to make him or her believe they are. (de Jonge 2001: 81)

35

36


Moreover, I have shown by examples (3)–(5) from the Preface that the Indicative can appear in contexts where the encoder expresses his/her subjective attitude. (3) […] et il dispose que ces larmes brûlantes seront (I) l’instrument de mon supplice éternel. (Aymé 1943 : 233) ‘[…] and he stipulates that these burning tears would (I) be [seront] the tool of my eternal torment.’ (4) […] mais il est à craindre que ce sera (I) tout. (Le Monde 10.5.1966, p. 20, col. 3 cit. in Boysen 1971 : 28) ‘But one should be afraid that it may (I) be [sera] all over.’ (5) “J’espère que l’on arrivera (I) à un accord à l’amiable”, a-t-il ajouté. (Libération, 30–31 octobre 1999, p. 8) ‘“I hope that we will (I) reach [arrivera] an amicable agreement”, he added.’

Therefore, it seems groundless to postulate the reality versus the unreality or the objectivity versus the subjectivity as the meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive, respectively. Consider Wagner & Pinchon (1962) on this matter: Il est inexact de définir le subjonctif comme le mode de la non-réalité par opposition à l’indicatif qui serait celui de la réalité. Le subjonctif évoque un fait réel dans Je suis heureux qu’il soit venu. L’indicatif n’exprime pas un fait réel lorsqu’on pose, au futur, je crois qu’il viendra. (Wagner & Pinchon 1962: 318) ‘It is inexact to define the subjunctive as the mood of non-reality in contrast with the indicative which would be that of reality. The subjunctive makes think of a fact in I am happy that he has come. The indicative does not express a fact when one states, in future, I think that he will come.’

3. The meanings of the psycho-semantic approach are sometimes of a negative nature (e.g., the mœuf of non-jugement). If the Subjunctive expresses occurrences on which the speaker or the subject of the main verb make no judgment, the question is what kind of idea the Subjunctive expresses at all. De Jonge (2001) pronounces on this matter as follows: We should, then, look for a meaning of the subjunctive that can be stated in positive terms in order to be able to explain (and not merely describe) all its uses as opposed to those of the indicative. (de Jonge 2001: 81)

I postulate Occurrence as being the invariant meaning of the Indicative and Alternative to Occurrence as being the invariant meaning of the


Subjunctive. These meanings not only show what exactly each mood emphasizes, but also allow me to provide a unifying explanation for the appearance of each of them in French.

1.7 Logico-pragmatic approach Previous sentence-oriented analyses have explained the use of French mood either by the influence of different triggers or by different functions and meanings that the Indicative and the Subjunctive have within a sentence. Yet, the rules of government do not explain the exceptional use of mood, shown by the data. The functions overlap. Multiple meanings that depend on context provide evidence for the arbitrariness of the structure of language. Therefore, logico-pragmatic analyses explain the choice of the Indicative and the Subjunctive by discourse context of the entire sentence. Discourse context represents the speaker’s and the hearer’s subjective interpretations of what a sentence means and conditions under which a sentence has been produced. These interpretations include (a) the logical concept of possible worlds and the pragmatic concepts of speech acts (cf. Austin 1970; Searle 1980), (b) presuppositions, required for “felicitous speech acts” (cf. Ducrot 1972; Jackendoff 1972), (c) implicatures, or inferred propositions (cf. Ducrot 1972; Grice 1975) and (d) mental operations that allegedly regulate language activity (cf. Culioli 2000 [1990], 1999). The logico-semantic analysis of the Subjunctive, carried out by Martin (1983), is based on the concepts of possible worlds and the truth-value of propositions, expressed by sentences. Martin postulates the universe of belief (Martin’s univers de croyance) that represents the set of propositions which the speaker considers true (ibid: 114). In this universe of belief, Martin distinguishes between possible worlds and counterfactual worlds, also called anti-univers (ibid). Possible worlds include true propositions which are only possibly true in the real world. Counterfactual worlds (anti-universe) include propositions which could have been true, but which are false in the real world. According to Martin (ibid: 107), the Subjunctive appears when a truth-value cannot be assigned to a sentence, i.e. when a proposition is attributed either to a possible world or to a counterfactual world. The Subjunctive of possible worlds expresses doubt, desire, purpose and necessity, while the Subjunctive of counterfactual worlds (anti-universe) expresses critical judgment, concession and unreality. Larreya (1987) bases his analysis of the French Subjunctive on the concept of presupposition. Larreya (ibid: 163) opposes the Subjunctive to the Conditional

37

38


and to the Imperfect Indicative (Larreya’s formes en -ais),12 used in conditional sentences. He starts from the assumption that information in a sentence can be represented at two levels: at the level of what is presupposed (Larreya’s présupposé) and at the level of what is stated (Larreya’s posé). While the former conveys known information, the latter conveys new information. At the level of the stated, both the Subjunctive and the forms with the -ais suffix express ideal or virtual occurrences. At the level of the presupposed, known information acquires either of the values true or false, based on its comparison with reality. Larreya (ibid: 165) illustrates the difference between the Subjunctive and the forms with the -ais suffix by the following sentences with opposite presuppositions: (14) Je regrette qu’il soit (S) absent. ‘I regret his absence (that he is (S) [soit] absent).’ (15) Si j’étais (Imperfect) à votre place, je resterais (Conditional). ‘If I were (Imperfect) [étais] you, I would stay (Conditional) [resterais].’

The Subjunctive in example (14) has a truth-value which coincides with the truthvalue of the presupposed reality: (he is absent). Therefore, according to Larreya, this sentence implies a presupposition with a positive orientation. The truth-value of the sentence with the -ais suffix in example (15) is opposite to the truth-value of the presupposed reality: (I am not you). As stated by Larreya, this sentence implies a presupposition with a negative orientation. […] ce mode [le Subjonctif] exprime non seulement une vision “virtuelle” du procès (comme cela a souvent été démontré), mais également un type particulier de présupposition – une présupposition orientée positivement –, et il fait partie d’un système dans lequel il s’oppose aux formes en -ais (l’Imparfait de l’Indicatif et le “Conditionnel”), qui expriment une présupposition orientée négativement. (Larreya 1987 : 163) ‘The Subjunctive expresses not only the “virtual” view of the process (as has often been demonstrated), but also a particular kind of presupposition, a positively oriented presupposition. This mood is part of a system in which it is opposed to the forms with the -ais suffix (the Imperfect Indicative and the “Conditional”) that express a negatively oriented presupposition.’

Further, Larreya (1987: 167–168) states that examples (14)–(15) represent two extremities. In fact, not all the sentences in the Subjunctive presuppose a truth-value (e.g., the Subjunctive following the verbs ordonner ‘to command’ or souhaiter to 12. Both the Conditional and the Imperfect Indicative have the suffix -ais in their morphology.


‘wish’). Nevertheless, the reality that the Subjunctive implies is close to the truth. Therefore, sentences in the Subjunctive always have a positive orientation. Nølke (1993, 2001) attempts to find a single meaning for all the uses of the French Subjunctive. He appeals to the theory of polyphony, developed by Ducrot (1982, 1984). This theory represents a situation through the prism of all the possible subjects, explicitly and implicitly present in a sentence. Within a sentence, Nølke (1993: 195) distinguishes between a speaker (Nølke’s locuteur L) and subjects (Nølke’s énonciateurs E). While the former is a person who produces an audible sentence, the author of a sentence, the latter are the authors of presuppositions, locutionary, illocutionary, etc. speech acts which form the meaning of a sentence. The relationships between a locuteur and énonciateurs can be different. According to Nølke (ibid), a locuteur can identify him-/herself with énonciateurs, or indirectly associate him-/herself with them, or distance him-/herself from them. The Indicative is used when a locuteur identifies him-/herself with one énonciateur. The use of the Subjunctive is associated with the notion of polyphony, i.e. when within the same sentence there are two different énonciateurs. However, as pointed out by Nølke (ibid: 194), not every case of polyphony implies the use of the Subjunctive. He distinguishes between external polyphony and internal polyphony. One can speak about external polyphony when someone different from a locuteur is associated with an énonciateur. In this case, a sentence does not convey the locuteur’s point of view and, being more objective, requires the Indicative. One can speak about internal polyphony when a locuteur is associated with different énonciateurs or when there are two different locuteurs in the same sentence. As pointed out by Nølke, the concept of locuteur is also complex. It includes a speaker-as-such (Nølke’s locuteur-en-tant-que-tel l0), associated with new information, and a speaker-as-individual (Nølke’s locuteuren-tant-qu’individu L), associated with the presupposition (known information). According to Nølke (ibid: 196), internal polyphony is concerned when a point of view (énonciateur), presented by the subordinate clause, is associated with the locuteur-en-tant-qu’individu (the presupposition), and a point of view, presented by the main clause, is associated with the locuteur-en-tant-que-tel (new information). In this case, a sentence conveys the locuteur’s point of view and, being more subjective, requires the Subjunctive. Nølke appeals to the awareness of the allocutaire ‘the hearer’ in order to explain the exceptional uses of the Indicative in sentences that express internal polyphony. As stated by Nølke (ibid: 200), the allocutaire may be aware of the information (opinion, fact), presented in the subordinate clause, which requires the use of the Indicative. Therefore, the author postulates that the Subjunctive is the marker of internal polyphony in the strict sense (ibid). Nølke concludes that one can speak about internal polyphony in the strict sense if only a locuteur-

39


en-tant-qu’individu (the presupposition) is associated with an énonciateur of the subordinate clause. Logico-pragmatic approaches avoid sentence-oriented explanations for the use of French mood which are based on different triggers, functions and meanings. However, they maintain sentence-oriented positions and are problematic on the following points: 1. The notions of possible worlds, truth-value conditions and polyphony are invented conceptions whose “psycholinguistic evidence” (Kirsner 2002: 358) is unclear. Just as other sentence-oriented conceptions, they are not motivated by the use of linguistic forms but are pre-established as facts. This contradicts the Saussurean view of linguistic structure. Ainsi la linguistique travaille sans cesse sur des concepts forgés par les grammairiens, et dont on ne sait s’ils correspondent réellement à des facteurs constitutifs du système de la langue. […] […] fonder ces classements sur autre chose que des entités concrètes – dire, par exemple, que les parties du discours sont des facteurs de la langue simplement parce qu’elles correspondent à des catégories logiques, – c’est oublier qu’il n’y a pas de faits linguistiques indépendants d’une manière phonique découpée en éléments significatifs. (Saussure 2001 [1916] : 153) ‘Linguistics is always working with concepts originally introduced by the grammarians. It is unclear whether or not these concepts really reflect constituent features of linguistic structure. […] […] to base these classifications on anything other than concrete entities – to say, for instance, that the parts of speech do reflect linguistic structure, simply because they are logically viable categories – is to forget that linguistic facts do not exist independently of sound-sequences divided into meaningful segments.’ (Saussure 1983 [1916]: 108)

Columbia School theory postulates linguistic forms as being signs in the Saussurean sense. These signs are concrete, not invented entities that “exist independently of any attempt on our part” (Diver 1995: 50) to understand them. In addition, Columbia School theory postulates meanings with plausible psycholinguistic evidence. They not only meet the communicative orientation of language, as concepts whose conveyed information serves a particular communicative purpose, but also reflect psychological characteristics of human beings who use language for communication. For example, Zubin’s (1979) analysis of case in German and Reid’s (1983) [1979] analysis of the French passé simple versus the imparfait apply the principles of “the human propensity for selective attention and that of egocentric bias” (Contini-Morava 1995: 13).


Other psychological explanations of syntactic phenomena used in sign-oriented work include avoidance of inferential complexity, the perceptual problem of signal recognition, iconicity, and ease of processing (see, for example, García 1975, 1983; Kirsner 1976, 1979b, 1983, 1985; van Putte 1988; Tobin 1990; ZubinKöpcke 1985). (Contini-Morava 1995: 13–14)

2. Though Nølke (1993, 2001) tries to present a single meaning for the Subjunctive, he does not postulate the Subjunctive as a Saussurean linguistic sign. Therefore, he does not arrive at a level of abstractness, necessary to infer an invariant meaning that accounts for all the uses of this mood. One should be skeptical about Nølke’s view of the Subjunctive as the marker of internal polyphony in the strict sense. This meaning is too specific to explain the appearance of the Subjunctive in all cases. Furthermore, it is related to different énonciateurs or locuteurs in the structure of the sentence that, according to Saussure, “belongs to speech, not to the language” (cf. Saussure 2001 [1916]: 172; Saussure 1983 [1916]: 122). In other words, by virtue of dealing with concepts outside of language, which are sentences and their constituents, the meanings that they express are also extra-linguistic. Reid & Gildin (1979) convincingly show the difference between signals and their invariant meanings as the tools of communication, on the one hand, and sentences and their messages as the product of communication, on the other: Therefore, signals and meanings contribute to the creation of the whole [the message], but do not compose it. The relationship is similar to that of the carpenter’s tools and the edifice he builds. The edifice is built by means of the saws and hammers he uses. However, a house is not made up of saws and hammers, nor does the carpenter leave his saws and hammers in each house he builds. […] And just as the investigation of tools and their strategies of use belongs to a theory of carpentry while the investigation of houses and their component parts belongs to the study of architecture, so too the investigation of signals and meanings belongs to a theory of language while the investigation of messages lies outside that theory. (Reid & Gildin 1979: 170)

I have chosen Columbia School theory because it provides a unified system of linguistic signs (signals and their invariant meanings) that explains the use of signs in different contexts. I postulate the Indicative and the Subjunctive as being the opposed Saussurean signs whose invariant meanings Occurrence and Alternative to Occurrence, respectively, motivate their distribution in French. 3. Nølke acknowledges that the interpretation of his examples is based upon the native speakers’ intuition:

41

42


La plupart des cas considérés se prêtent en effet à plusieurs interprétations. Celle que je propose pour (10) est pourtant en accord avec les intuitions de mes informateurs. (Nølke 1993 : 200, notes) ‘The majority of considered cases, indeed, lend themselves to several interpretations. The one that I suggest for example (10), however, conforms to the intuition of my informants.’

Different interpretations about the number of énonciateurs or locuteurs result from dealing with sentences and the concrete messages that they convey. The view of interpretations as being part of the language or linguistic meanings is evidence of the arbitrariness of the structure of language. This view makes the use of linguistic signs unpredictable because it is unlikely to find “an algorithm for predicting all possible interpretations of a linguistic sign” (ContiniMorava 1995: 6). In this connection, consider Langacker (2004) who states the following while presenting Columbia School arguments against the broad definition of language: How can we describe a language if we are forced to deal with the interpretive process in all its complexity, accommodating every conceivable interpretation in every conceivable context? (Langacker 2004: 48)

Columbia School theory relies on native speakers’ intuition for the postulation of invariant meanings from observed linguistic data and for the judgment about messages, contributed by these invariant meanings. 4. Strictly speaking, the distinction of two or more énonciateurs and locuteurs for the same speaker or subject might remind one of a split personality. According to Nølke himself (1993: 205–206), this is barely imaginable, except perhaps in case of a progressive schizophrenia.

chapter 2

Sign-oriented approaches

As previously stated, the sentence is the source of linguistic analyses for all sentence-oriented approaches. The meaning of the sentence is deduced from the meanings of its component parts. Since the number of possible sentences is greater than the number of its component parts, each component part is argued to convey several meanings. In other words, sentence-oriented approaches proceed from a many-to-one relationship between a linguistic form and its meanings. However, the sentence is not an ideal unit of analysis because of its variation. Consider Saussure (2001 [1916]) on this matter: Une théorie assez répandue prétend que les seules unités concrètes sont les phrases : nous ne parlons que par les phrases, et après coup nous en extrayons les mots. Mais d’abord jusqu’à quel point la phrase appartient-elle à la langue ? Si elle relève de la parole, elle ne saurait passer pour l’unité linguistique. […] Si nous nous représentons l’ensemble des phrases susceptibles d’être prononcées, leur caractère le plus frappant est de ne pas se ressembler du tout entre elles. […] entre les phrases […], c’est la diversité qui domine, et dès qu’on cherche ce qui les relie toutes à travers cette diversité, on retrouve, sans l’avoir cherché, le mot avec ses caractères grammaticaux, et l’on retombe dans les mêmes difficultés. (Saussure 2001 [1916] : 148–149) ‘A widely held view claims that the only concrete linguistic units are sentences. We speak in sentences, it is said: analyzing sentences into words is a secondary operation. But first of all it must be asked to what extent sentences belong to the language itself. If the sentence as such belongs to speech, it can hardly be counted as a linguistic unit. […] If we think of all the sentences which could be uttered, what strikes us most forcibly is the lack of resemblance between them. […] With sentences […], it is diversity which is predominant. As soon as one looks for something to link them together in spite of this diversity, one finds that one has unintentionally come back to the word and its grammatical features, with all the attendant difficulties already familiar.’ (Saussure 1983 [1916]: 104–105)

The Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian School, the School of the Psychomechanics of Language of Gustave Guillaume and the Columbia School follow Saussure and reject the sentence as an analytical unit in favor of the sign with its invariant meaning. These approaches view the structure of language as an inventory of signs that are the only object of linguistic study. Therefore, they are called sign-


oriented approaches. Sign-oriented approaches proceed from the basic Saussurean assumption that the linguistic sign represents a single unit. It is composed of a relatively abstract meaning (Saussure’s signifié), invariably paired with its signal (Saussure’s signifiant) “in the form of concrete morphological forms of more abstract zero morphology or word order” (Tobin 1995: 10). In other words, sign-oriented approaches proceed from a one form-one meaning relationship between a linguistic sign and its meaning. Sign-oriented theories also follow the Saussurean distinction between the abstract invariant meaning (Saussure’s signifié) of a sign and specific communicated ideas or messages (Saussure’s ensemble de significations), associated with the latter. Signs and their invariant meanings are part of the structure of language, whereas communicated messages are the result of the use of signs and their meanings in language. The meaning-message dichotomy manifests the principle of invariance, advocated by all the sign-oriented approaches. It consists of providing a unifying explanation for the appearance and the distribution of linguistic forms, based on the notion of the linguistic sign and its invariant meaning. The dichotomy between the invariant meaning of a linguistic sign versus its inferred contextual messages and syntactic functions […] is the most basic Saussurian and, therefore, semiotic axiom. This axiom leads to the idea that de Saussure (should have) created a new theoretical paradigm when he established the sign as the basis of his definitions of both language and of linguistic science: definitions which made the notion of invariance both theoretically and methodologically crucial to scholars who have adopted the sign as their unit of linguistic analysis. (Tobin 1990: 69)

Advocates of the three sign-oriented theories have dealt with the mood of verbs in ancient Greek, English and French. Though these sign-oriented approaches share the same concept of language and linguistic signs, they have noteworthy differences.13

2.1 Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian theory Jakobson (1971) proposes the concept of invariant meaning in the form of a set of semantic features, shared by all the members of a grammatical system. Each member can be marked for a semantic feature, if it signals the presence of a feature, or unmarked if the member does not signal it. Aspect, Voice and Modality 13. For detailed comparisons of Jakobsonian, Guillaumean and Columbia School approaches, see especially Tobin (1990).

Chapter 2. Sign-oriented approaches

are among semantic features, presented by Jakobson. Jakobson’s argumentation for the postulation of these semantic features has been adopted as the qualitative method of validation of invariant meanings by all sign-oriented approaches. Jakobson’s basic theoretical and methodological argumentation for the principle of invariant meaning generally has appeared in the form of: a detailed catalogue of all the different contextual messages that can be attributed to a linguistic sign; followed by a demonstration that there is a single general meaning underlying all of these specific contextual messages. This kind of argumentation has generally become the mainstay of most of the qualitative validations of the invariant meanings postulated by semiotic or sign-oriented linguists of the three schools […], as well as by other linguists advocating the isomorphic approach of oneform – one-meaning such as Dwight Bolinger (1977). (Tobin 1990: 74)

Application of the Jakobsonian concept of markedness (cf. Jakobson 1984: 41–58, 1990: 134–140) to the system of French mood leads me to postulate Modality as its semantic feature. Within the binary opposition between the Indicative and the Subjunctive, the former constitutes the unmarked member, while the latter constitutes the marked member of the pair. This means that the Subjunctive makes a specific claim concerning (is marked by) the semantic feature Modality, while the Indicative makes no specific claim (is unmarked) concerning this feature. Paraphrasing García (1994: 355, note 8), I contend that the Indicative has the major distinctive feature of an unmarked term: it means the usual or predictable state of affairs. On the other hand, the Subjunctive is identified with the unusual and the unpredictable because it possesses the following characteristics of a marked term (ibid: 334): 1. Qualitative: the marked Subjunctive “signals a departure from” the norm, designated by the unmarked Indicative which “serves as default option”. 2. Formal: the marked Subjunctive implies both an occurrence and its alternative, i.e. provides additional information concerning an occurrence. Therefore, it is more complex cognitively than the unmarked Indicative. 3. Quantitative: the marked Subjunctive “is less frequent overall” than the unmarked Indicative, “whereby it acquires cognitive salience”. Cornelis H. van Schooneveld develops the Jakobsonian concept of markedness. He determines “the nature both of the marks themselves in terms of semantic features and also of their interrelations” (Fradkin 1986 [1985]: 23). Van Schooneveld (1989) suggests a set of six markings (semantic features), ordered on four levels of deixis that are presented as follows:

45


Plurality, which means that more than one perception is needed to identify the referent; dimensionality, stating that the referent constitutes a subset within a larger set or a subcontinuum within a larger space; identity, indicating that the identification of the referent is possible only during a given period of time, while extension signalizes that the referent is identified more than once. Cancellation eliminates the space in which the first identification took place, replacing it by a space with a different entity. Finally, objectiveness makes the identification of the referent independent from any previously given space, whether initial or subsequent. (Van Schooneveld 1989: 99)

Four levels of deixis, two unmarked (non-singulative) and two marked (singulative), are represented by four primes that are placed as a superscript to the six semantic features. The levels of deixis indicate the following information “within the narrative and/or speech situations”: (1) The first prime – ’ = perceptional [identificational] deixis = narrative situation = a set of potential narrative situations of which one is chosen in parole. (2) The second prime – ’’ = transmissional deixis = speech situation = a set of speech situations in which one is chosen in parole. (3) The third prime – ’’’ = singulative perceptional [identificational] deixis = distinctness between narrative situations = choosing a specific narrative situation. (4) the fourth prime – ’’’’ = singulative transmissional deixis = distinctness between speech situations = choosing a specific speech situation. (Tobin 1990: 77)

Van Schooneveld (1989) proposes an analysis of the ancient Greek mood system, including the Subjunctive and the Optative. In his analysis, both the Subjunctive and the Optative are marked for “singulatively identificational feature” (ibid: 108). This means the commitment to deal with a relationship between the process and the individual agent. Within this pair, the Subjunctive is also marked by a semantic feature “singulative identificational extension (ext”’)” (ibid: 111). This feature indicates the encoder’s expectation that the agent will perform the encoder’s assignment, expressed by the Subjunctive, with minimal change in the agent’s status. The Optative is marked by the semantic feature “singulative identificational cancellation (canc”’)” (ibid). This feature indicates the encoder’s wish for the materialization of the process for which he/she does not want to take responsibility, due to its dependence on the narrated situation. The postulation of these semantic invariants allows van Schooneveld to explain the use of the ancient Greek mood in different syntactic constructions.


2.2 Guillaumean theory Gustave Guillaume (1970) and his followers (Barral 1980; Hewson 1997; Moignet 1959, 1981; Stefanini 1992) deal with the system of French mood through the prism of his linguistic theory, called Psychomechanics. Guillaume’s research […] in French and the Classical languages focussed on the discovery of the underlying potential meaning of langue (or tongue) as part of an abstract movement of thought. (Tobin 1990: 77)

According to Guillaume (1970: 8), the activity of language is a mental operation. This implies operative time, present in any thought process and needed that a mental operation could attain its full actualization. Guillaume refers to the development of a mental operation as the chronogenesis. He represents it schematically in the form of an axis, called the axis of chronogenetic time. Guillaume sees the chronogenesis as a mechanical system of successive cognitive stages which must be involved in the development of every verbal form, so that every verbal form used in discourse is the product of one of these three stages, and therefore is morphologically marked as being of either quasi-nominal, subjunctive, or indicative mood. (Hewson 1997: 112)

At the syntactic level, Guillaume proposes the binary opposition of the possible versus the probable that underlies the system of French mood. The time image of the chronogenesis develops through it as well. As stated by Guillaume, the meaning of any occurrence is determined by its position – initial, middle, or final – on the axis of the chronogenesis. The initial position of the development of the time image is the stage of the static time in posse or the quasi-nominal mood represented by the infinitive, the present and past participles. The Subjunctive (the time in fieri) and the Indicative (the time in esse) are introduced at the second and the third stages, respectively. Unlike the first stage of the static quasi-nominal mood, the second stage is represented as the movement of the time image from the time in posse to the time in esse. Since such a movement requires “the grammatical support of a subject” (Hewson 1997: 112), at this stage, one deals with the development of the time image in a complex sentence. This development does not depend on any trigger or governor. It is determined by the transparency of the viewing idea (Guillaume’s idée regardante). This notion allows abstract thought to attain the third stage of the chronogenesis, i.e. the time in esse or the Indicative. The use of the Subjunctive shows that the development of the time image has not been completed. Therefore, the event in the Subjunctive is represented as a possible occurrence. The Indicative shows that the development of the time image has been completed. It represents the event “as experienced by the speaker or

47


hearer” (Hewson 1997: 43), i.e. as an occurrence. The Subjunctive, assigned to the realm of the possible (Guillaume’s champ du possible), does not allow the encoder to make a distinction between the present, the past and the future. Therefore, an occurrence in the Subjunctive appears indistinct and imprecise. The Indicative, assigned to the realm of the probable (Guillaume’s champ du probable), allows for the clear-cut distinction between the future, the past and the present. Therefore, it contributes to the best actualization of an occurrence. Le propre de la notion de possible est d’annuler la capacité d’actualité (= chances d’être) par une capacité égale et contraire (= chances de ne pas être). Le propre de la notion de probable, de conférer à la capacité d’actualité une existence positive (les chances d’être l’emportant sur celles de ne pas être). En d’autres termes : possible = capacité d’actualité zéro; probable = capacité d’actualité différente de zéro mais aussi petite que l’on voudra. (Guillaume 1970 : 33) ‘The essence of the concept of possible is to reduce to zero the capability of actuality (= ‘chances to be’) by an equal and opposite capability (= ‘chances not to be’). The essence of the concept of probable is to provide the capability of actuality with a positive existence (‘the chances to be’ dominating over ‘the chances not to be’). In other words, possible = zero capability of actuality; probable = capability of actuality different from zero but as little as one wants.’

Thus, Guillaume views the system of the French verb as part of the development of the time image (the chronogenesis). He postulates the opposition of the possible versus the probable. This “is what distinguishes Guillaumean theory from the other sign-oriented theories” (Tobin 1990: 78) and allows Guillaume to explain the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative in different linguistic contexts.

2.3 Summary and conclusions To summarize, in this survey, I have examined major sentence-oriented and signoriented explanations for the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in French. The survey has shown that the differences between diverse sentence-oriented approaches and the three sign-oriented approaches consist in the basic units that each approach chooses for its analysis. For the sentence-oriented theories, this unit is the sentence with various contextual meanings of forms within it. For the sign-oriented theories, this unit is the sign with its invariant meaning. The focus of the sentence-oriented analyses of French mood is on communicated ideas or messages, conveyed by the Indicative and the Subjunctive. According to these theories, both moods constitute component parts of sentences.


Hence, their meanings are defined “by all of [their] uses in sentences: [they have] multiple senses for [their] multiple uses” (Reid & Gildin 1979: 163). Sentence-oriented explanations, which I have discussed, include: 1. The syntactic, generative and functional explanations: they attribute the use of French mood to syntactic rules of government, syntactic effects of the matrix clause, syntactic constraints or different functions. However, the data show exceptions to syntactic rules and the overlap of functions. At the same time, the lists of syntactic rules, triggers and functions vary from one researcher to another. These lists do not provide the explanation of why the Subjunctive or the Indicative has been chosen by the speaker. 2. The explanation within the framework of cognitive grammar: it deals with the multi-level polysemous Subjunctive network. This network includes (a) the prototype (the most typical meaning), (b) the conceptual schema (the most abstract of all the members of the prototype set) and (c) various subschemas (abstractions of a lesser generality within the set). The complexity of the network proposed by cognitive grammar is necessitated by the very complex “nature of human cognitive organization and function” (Winters 1993: 272). However, there is no evidence of what the correlation between the human cognitive process and language is. The polysemous meaning of the Subjunctive creates an excessive communicative burden, caused by the need to remember all the uses of this mood. Polysemy, hence, conflicts with the nature of language as a communicative tool, advocated by Saussure. It [the alternative definition of language] assumes that the structure of language is a consequence of the fact that language is an instrument of communication, and that the task of the grammarian is therefore to find in language those features that reflect the characteristics of such an instrument. (Diver 1981: 59–60)

3. The psycho-semantic explanation: it attributes the use of French mood to the speaker’s psychological attitude towards expressed ideas. This attitude can be either subjective, which entails the use of the Subjunctive, or objective, which entails the use of the Indicative. Yet, the data show that, on the one hand, the Indicative can appear in contexts that emphasize the speaker’s subjective attitude towards an occurrence. On the other hand, the Subjunctive appears in contexts that present an occurrence as a fact or emphasize the speaker’s objective attitude towards it. Moreover, the meanings, postulated within the psycho-semantic framework, are of psychological or mental nature, i.e. are extra-linguistic and, therefore, not analyzable.

49

50


4. The logico-semantic and pragmatic explanations: they associate the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive with the concept of possible worlds, truth-value conditions or polyphony. The Indicative is claimed to convey the truth-value or to be associated with external polyphony (opinion, expressed by someone different from the locuteur). The Subjunctive is said either to belong to different possible worlds, or to imply a presupposition with positive orientation, or to indicate internal polyphony in the strict sense (opinion, expressed only by the locuteur). However, these approaches describe the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative, based on invented grammatical conceptions that deal with the structure of sentences. But sentences are extra-linguistic and, therefore, not analyzable. The survey has shown that sentence-oriented grammar disregarded the Saussurean linguistic sign with its invariant meaning as the basic analytical unit. This shows that “the Saussurian Sign Revolution really has not taken place” (Tobin 1990: 15). On the other hand, the Saussurean sign has been adopted by signoriented theories. They state that communicated ideas or messages are extra-linguistic and cannot be part of the theory. The semantic whole is not the primary analytical unit. The relationship between semantic parts and wholes is not one of composition. The sentence is not the appropriate characterization of the semantic whole, nor does the concept of sentence have any place in the semantic analysis of language. (Reid & Gildin 1979: 163)

Sentence-oriented theories differ from sign-oriented theories in the status that a sentence has in sentence-oriented grammar versus the status that a message has in sign-oriented grammar. Reid & Gildin (1979) summarize these differences as follows: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii.

The sentence is the basic unit of analysis. The message is not the basic unit of analysis. Sentences emerge from the perspective of logic. Messages emerge from the perspective of communication. Sentences have both a structure and a content. Messages have only a content, and no structure is assigned. Sentences are delimited. Messages are not delimited. Sentences are given a semantic characterization. Messages are not given a semantic characterization. Sentences are composed of linguistic parts and relations. Messages are contributed to by, but not composed of, linguistic parts. Language is made up of an infinite number of sentences, all of which are predictable.


viii.

Language can express an infinite number of messages, but these messages are not predictable. Sentences are what is being explained by the theory. Messages are not what is being explained by the theory. (Reid & Gildin 1979: 170–171)

Thus, the goal of sign-oriented theories is to postulate a single invariant meaning of a linguistic form (a signal) that contributes to all the contextual messages in which that form can appear. Moignet wrote the following on the matter: Nous considérons comme subjonctif tout ce qui a la forme d’un subjonctif, et nous estimons a priori qu’il faut qu’il y ait entre tous les emplois du mode, quels qu’ils soient, un lien actuel, à la base de toutes les valeurs, un principe commun existant dans l’esprit. Le subjonctif de l’indépendante aurait-il toutes les valeurs de l’impératif, il n’en resterait pas moins que, par sa forme, il est subjonctif, et cette raison suffit pour nous inviter à rechercher un dénominateur commun à cette valeur impérative et à toutes les autres, si différentes qu’elles puissent paraître dans le plan du discours. (Moignet 1959 : 57) ‘We regard as the subjunctive all that has the form of the subjunctive, and we consider a priori that it is necessary that between all the uses of this mood, whatever they are, there be an actual link, based on all the values, a common principle in mind. Even if the subjunctive of the independent clause has all the values of the imperative, it is, nevertheless, the subjunctive by its form, and this reason is enough for us to seek a common denominator for this value of the imperative and for all the others, however different they could seem in speech.’

In Part 2, I present the basic principles of Columbia School theory and postulate the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. They explain the use and the distribution of both moods in French.

51

part 2

Columbia School theory

chapter 3

The basic principles

The following presents the basic principles of Columbia School theory. Most of these principles are shared by Jakobsonian-van Schooneveldian and Guillaumean sign-oriented theories. According to Tobin (1990), the fundamental theoretical and methodological implications of the three sign-oriented theories that distinguish them from sentence-oriented theories are as follows: (1) rejecting all preconceived theoretical units and categories such as the sentence, the word, parts of speech, etc., in favour of the unique concept of the linguistic sign; (2) maintaining the distinction between invariant sign meaning versus contextual sentence and discourse messages. (Tobin 1990: 72)

Tobin points that despite these similarities there are significant differences between these approaches with regard to: (1) what they view as an abstract invariant sign meaning; (2) the role of the human factor in linguistic analysis; (3) the methodological procedures by which they validate their invariant meanings both qualitatively and quantitatively. (ibid: 73)

Therefore, first, I deal with a common ground for the three sign-oriented approaches. This includes the structure of language, the difference between an invariant meaning and a contextual message, and the role of signals and meanings in linguistic analysis. I further present the notions that distinguish the Columbia School approach from the other sign-oriented approaches. These include the notions of semantic domain, interlock and communicative strategies.

3.1 The Columbia School definition of language The definition of language is the cornerstone of any linguistic analysis because “all the other theoretical and methodological assumptions naturally follow” from “the way a linguist defines language” (Tobin 1995: 7). It follows from the previously presented survey that sentence-oriented grammar defines language as “a representational system of sentential meaning” (Reid 2004: 94). According to this

56


definition, language represents thoughts, expressed in the form of sentences that, hence, become the basic units of sentence-oriented analysis. It is further claimed that the meaning of the sentence is inferred from the semantic values of its component parts. Reid (2004) states the following: In the compositional view, the literal meaning of a sentence is assumed to consist of the meanings of the individual words amalgamated in a way determined by the grammatical structure of the sentence. (Reid 2004: 94)

The sentence-oriented definition of language implies that component parts of sentences convey multiple meanings. Sentence-oriented analyses provide detailed descriptions of contexts in which a form is used rather than explanation for its use. An explanation, based on context, is evidence of the arbitrariness of the structure of language and the unpredictability of the use of a form. To explain the distribution of a form in language, i.e., factually, to find a common denominator for all its uses, one must define language in another way. As noted by Hjelmslev (1966): Quelque chose peut paraître plus simple qu’auparavant quand on le regarde d’un point de vue différent, et une telle simplification permettra plus de clarté dans la compréhension qu’on a du phénomène, tout en le laissant tel qu’il est et a toujours été. (Hjelmslev 1966 : 180) ‘Something can appear simpler than before when one looks at it from a different point of view, and such a simplification will allow one to better understand a phenomenon, leaving it such as it is and always was.’

Another way to define language is to assume that no correspondence can be established between language and thought. As stated by Benveniste (1966): Poser ces deux termes, pensée et langue, comme solidaires et mutuellement nécessaires ne nous indique pas comment ils sont solidaires, pourquoi on les jugerait indispensables l’un à l’autre. Entre une pensée qui ne peut se matérialiser que dans la langue et une langue qui n’a d’autre fonction que de « signifier », on voudrait établir une relation spécifique, car il est évident que les termes en présence ne sont pas symétriques. […] A strictement parler, la pensée n’est pas une matière à laquelle la langue prêterait forme […] (Benveniste 1966 : 64) ‘To consider these two notions, thought and language, interdependent and mutually necessary does not indicate to us how they could be interdependent and why one would believe that they are essential to each other. Between thought, which cannot materialize but in language, and language, which has no other function but to “signify”, one would like to establish a specific relationship because it is obvious that the notions in question are not symmetrical. […] Strictly speaking, thought is not a subject to which language would provide a form […]’

Chapter 3. The basic principles

The reluctance of sentence-oriented theories “to deal directly with meaning as something internal to language” (Diver 1980: 3) prevents them from finding a one-to-one relationship between a form and its meaning. The goal of Columbia School theory is the explanation for the use and the distribution of linguistic forms, based on their invariant meanings. Therefore, Columbia School theory gives up the relationship between language and thought. As a consequence, the sentence is also rejected as the basic analytical unit and language is defined in the following way: Language: A system of systems composed of various sub-systems (revolving around the notion of the linguistic sign) which are organized internally and systematically related to each other and used by human beings to communicate. (Tobin 1995: 7)

This definition implies that (a) the Columbia School views language as an inventory of signs, composed of distinct signals and their invariant meanings, and (b) language is a communicative tool. The fact that language is a tool of human communication determines both the structure of language as an inventory of signs and the exploitation of language by native speakers. Language is composed of signs because they differentiate between ideas “in a clear and constant way” (Saussure 1983 [1916]: 110) and thereby contribute to better communication. The distribution of signs, i.e. where they occur and where they do not occur (cf. Diver 1981: 72), is also communicatively motivated. A sign appears where it does because its invariant meaning conveys information that contributes to a particular communicative purpose. As a tool of human communication, the exploitation of language is influenced by the psychological characteristics of human beings in their process of communication. Therefore, a linguist who undertakes a Columbia School analysis must answer the following questions: (a) Why do linguistic forms occur where they do, rather than in other imaginable patterns or at random? (b) How do we account for the fact that human beings are able to produce and infer an infinite number of novel messages from a finite number of signs? (Contini-Morava 1995: 3)

3.2 Invariant meaning versus contextual messages The Columbia School follows the Saussurean distinction between “the abstract system of systems shared by the community of speakers (langue) and the concrete realization of that abstract code exploited by individual speakers and writers

57

58


(parole)” (Tobin 1995: 8). In Columbia School terminology, this is the distinction between an invariant meaning and various communicated messages or contextual meanings. The former is part of the structure of language which is a tool of communication. The latter are part of the use of that tool, inferred from or contributed to by an invariant meaning. This distinction can be better illustrated by Kirsner’s analogy with a musical instrument. Communicated messages “are no more a part of the communicative instrument called a language than Bach fugues are a part of the musical instrument called a harpsichord” (Kirsner 2004: 6). The following remark, attributed to Reid, is maintained in the same spirit: The relationship between a language and a set of sentences is like that between a car and a set of trips to the supermarket. (W. Reid cited in Tobin 1990: xi)

In a less figurative, but not less precise manner, Tobin (1990) states the following on the relationship between language and inferred messages: This fundamental opposition of invariance versus variation may best be illustrated in the traditional notions of polysemy and homonymy, or the fact that the same linguistic sign with a single invariant meaning can be inferred to have many and diverse messages as well as multiple syntactic and pragmatic functions within different discourse contexts. (Tobin 1990: 51)

As previously pointed out, Columbia School theory rejects polysemy as being incompatible with providing a unified explanation for the use of linguistic signs. However, it may be argued that the distinction between an invariant meaning and variable messages is the tactics of Columbia School theory to adopt polysemy implicitly, which all the sentence-oriented theories do explicitly. That is what Larreya (1984: 24, notes) claims about the Guillaumean sign-oriented approach. Guillaume (1970) distinguishes between one invariant meaning (Guillaume’s signifié de puissance in Hewson 1997: 96) and multiple contextual meanings (Guillaume’s signifiés d’effet in Hewson 1997: 124). Larreya argues that this distinction provides evidence for the adoption of polysemy by Guillaumean theory. In fact, all the sign-oriented theories appeal to contextual meanings only to show that the latter are contributed to by the invariant meaning of a sign. In other words, the main idea is that the invariant meaning of a sign motivates its distribution in different contexts. The invariant meaning of a sign contributes to various concrete messages in which a sign can appear, because it is invariant and relatively abstract. Indeed, since meaning is invariant, it naturally underlies all the uses of a sign and motivates, as a consequence, its distribution in language. In addition, an invariant meaning must be more abstract than the inferred contextual messages in order to allow for the appearance of a sign in a variety of contexts. This abstractness is achieved by the


view of linguistic meanings as “notional fragments, clues, hints” (Reid 2004: 94) with which decoders are provided in the process of communication. The contribution of an invariant meaning to various inferred messages can be illustrated by analyses of the senses, in which the word is used, or dictionary definitions of lexical items. Consider Tobin’s analysis of the senses, in which the English word drove is used, as it appears in the following set of examples (Tobin 1990: 52): (1)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

John drove his wife John drove his wife home inference = by car John drove his wife crazy inference = not by car John drove the herd home Ahmed, the shepherd, drove the herd home ambiguos inference John drove his wife to the insane asylum.

} }

}

Tobin (ibid) presents these examples in the following way: In examples (1a, b), the commonly inferred inference connected with the word drove is ‘by car’ despite the fact that there is no specific mention of any vehicle in the utterance whatsoever. In example (1c) it is ‘John’s behavior’ which we infer in connection with the word drove as opposed to ‘by car’ in this specific collocation with the word crazy. In example (1d) it is ‘John, a shepherd walking on foot and possibly holding a staff in his hand’, which we infer with the word drove as opposed to ‘by car’ in this specific collocation with the word herd as opposed to home. In example (1e), however, where ‘John’ is replaced by ‘Ahmed’ there may possibly be two alternative ambiguous meanings ‘by car’ or ‘not by car’ when the sentence is uttered in the familiar Be’er Sheva context where modern bedouin shepherds are known ‘to drive their herd home’ in the back of Peugeot transit vans. In example (1f) where to the insane asylum replaces the words home and/or crazy, we can also infer the two possible ambiguous discourse messages ‘by car’ or ‘not by car’ with the word drove depending upon whether we interpret it literally, as in the sense of (1b), or figuratively, in the sense of (1c). (Tobin 1990: 52)

Then, Tobin postulates an abstract invariant meaning for the word drove, which is “led/transported x or caused x to move”. As a result, all the specific messages that one can infer “may be viewed as the exploitation of a single invariant meaning […] in different linguistic and situational contexts” (Tobin 1990: 52). Tobin also shows that the same invariant meaning could be applied to different syntactic constructions of the word drove: “to the ‘nominal’ uses derived from the infinite or non-past form drive” or to “‘phrasal verbs’ composed of drive + ‘prepositions’” (ibid). These constructions appear in the following set of examples:

59


(2)

a. b. c. d.

‘the drive to win’; ‘to put your car in drive’; ‘a drive-in bank’; ‘to drive in a nail’;

In the two last examples, Tobin (1990: 53) postulates the invariant meaning limited by boundaries for the preposition in. In a similar fashion, Tobin (ibid: 53–58) further illustrates how the single invariant meaning motivates all the contextual messages of the English words shy and lost. The invariant meaning of the former is postulated as being x keep away/ withdraw from/avoid y. The invariant meaning of the latter is postulated as being x missing to y. While rejecting the sentence as the basic analytical unit, Columbia School theory acknowledges the psychological reality of the sentence for native speakers. What Columbia School theory denies is the connection between the psychological reality of the sentence and its role as part of the structure of language. The psychological reality of sentences does not mean that “they are or must be the abstract hypothetical units of linguistic analysis” (ibid: 72). Reid (2004: 114) has also pointed out that in a linguistic analysis one does not need any special theory “that would account for the messages themselves”. The Columbia School sign-oriented approach “allows the linguist to take the thoughts – messages – as givens and proceed directly to explaining why speakers use particular forms to express them”. This meaning-message distinction has been motivated by the fundamental thesis of Saussure that “the only true object of study in linguistics is the language, considered in itself and for its own sake” (Saussure 1983 [1916]: 230).

3.3 Meanings and signals in Columbia School theory An invariant meaning in Columbia School theory is the essence of a sign, “its unchangeable core” (Kirsner 2002: 348). Therefore, great importance is attributed to the psychological reality of invariant meanings for the encoder and the decoder. As stated by Tobin (1995): The Diverians are particularly interested in postulating meanings which have a high degree of psychological plausibility and potential cognitive relevance (Kirsner 1984: 164). Oftentimes these meanings are relative meanings placed on a hierarchical scale of value such as high versus low focus for Reid’s (1977) analysis of the French passé simple versus the imparfait, or most, more, less, or least degree of control for the nominative, ablative, dative and accusative cases in Diver’s (1981) analysis of the Latin system of control. (Tobin 1995: 42)


Following Saussure (2001 [1916]), Columbia School theory claims that the object of study is not given in advance. On the contrary, “one might say that it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object” (Saussure 1983 [1916]: 8). For Columbia School grammar, this means that neither invariant meanings nor their signals are known in advance and, therefore, they must be postulated together. The identification of signals can be as problematic as finding their invariant meanings because not every unit can be analyzed as a signal. One forgets, for example, that sentence-oriented categories (the sentence, the subject, the parts of speech), “so widely accepted as “facts” of language”, were “created by a particular point of view; that is, hypotheses” (Diver 1981: 59). Instead of these extra-linguistic or formal units, signals with which Columbia School theory deals are distinct linguistic units that belong to different levels of language: i. phonemes, words, parts of words, and units larger than the word such as compound words (with accompanying prosodic signals such as juncture [a blackbird versus a black bird] i.e. concrete linguistic forms traditionally allocated to the realms of morphology and the lexicon as well as prosodic signals; ii. even more abstract morphological or grammatical signals such as zero (Ø), e.g. in the English singular versus plural opposition: [boy +Ø] (sing) versus [boy + -s] (pl.); iii. even more complex abstract syntactic signals such word order, e.g. where word order differences produce totally different messages in sentences ‘the dog bit the boy’ versus ‘the boy bit the dog’, or ‘he left the empty house’ versus ‘he left the house empty’, or inversion in English declarative, emphatic, or interrogative constructions [‘you did X.’ versus ‘you did!’ versus ‘did you?’] which may also be accompanied by changes in intonation or other prosodic signals; iv. locutions, formulaic expressions, idioms and even entire sentences, e.g. ‘he kicked the bucket’ (‘he died’) which may be accompanied by prosodic signals as well; v. larger units of discourse and entire texts may be viewed as signals of linguistic signs as well. (Tobin 1995: 32–33)

Reid & Gildin (1979) explain the role of signals and meanings in sign-oriented linguistic analysis by providing the following theoretical and methodological implications of sign-oriented grammar versus sentence-oriented grammar: i. Signals and meanings are the basic units of analysis. ii. Signals and meanings are justified by the fact that language is used for communication and by the potential insight that this fact gives us into the structure of language. iii. Signals and meanings are invariably paired; hence, the basic linguistic construct is essentially semantic.

61

62


iv. The analytical task is to hypothesize these linguistic constructs, and to demonstrate the contribution of the meanings to the ongoing communication whenever its signal is manifested. v. The ongoing communication is the message. vi. Meanings are manifested in the message, and we can demonstrate the semantic contribution of the meaning in question by appealing to other aspects of the message. vii. Although we appeal to aspects of the message, in order to demonstrate the appropriateness of a meaning, the message itself is not analyzed. viii. Language is made up of an inventory of signals and meanings, about whose distribution predictions can be made. ix. The theory explains the distribution of signals and meanings by users of the language. (Reid & Gildin 1979: 171)

3.4 Relationships between signs in Columbia School theory Columbia School theory does not consider linguistic signs and their invariant meanings in isolation, but in opposition to other signs. It is because the entire mechanism of language is based on oppositions and upon the phonetic and conceptual differences they involve (cf. Saussure 2001 [1916]: 167; Saussure 1983 [1916]: 119). Therefore, in my analysis, I oppose the Saussurean signals traditionally associated with the meanings of the Subjunctive and the Indicative.14 In Columbia School theory, the invariant meanings of linguistic signs, taken individually, are part of a larger semantic concept, referred to as a semantic domain or semantic substance. Tobin (1995) states the following on this matter: If more than one sign can be characterized by the same semantic substance, these signs are in an oppositional relationship of their categorization of that semantic domain. When the invariant meanings of a set of signs taken together exhaustively classify a semantic substance, this is called a grammatical system. (Tobin 1995: 44)

For example, in my analysis, I postulate that the French Subjunctive and Indicative are in an oppositional relationship within the Occurrence System. The primary function of this system is to deal with an occurrence taking place that a lexical meaning (verb, in traditional terminology) expresses in a specific context. The semantic substance of the Occurrence System is, therefore, the nature of an occurrence taking place. I show that the encoder uses this system either to emphasize 14. For the analysis of the signals of the Subjunctive and the Indicative, see Soutet (2000: 13– 28).


his/her commitment to an occurrence by asserting its realization through the use of the Indicative, or to avoid his/her commitment to an occurrence by implying an alternative occurrence with the use of the Subjunctive. The Occurrence System in French is presented, hence, as the opposition of the Indicative that means Occurrence versus the Subjunctive that means Alternative to Occurrence. According to Saussure, language is a system in which all the parts “can and must be considered as synchronically interdependent” (Saussure 1983 [1916]: 86). Benveniste (1966) develops the Saussurean idea on language as a system and states the following: De la base au sommet, depuis les sons jusqu’aux formes d’expressions les plus complexes, la langue est un arrangement systématique de parties. Elle se compose d’éléments formels articulés en combinaisons variables, d’après certains principes de structure. (Benveniste 1966 : 21) ‘From bottom to top, from the sounds to the most complex expressions, language is a systematic arrangement of parts. It is composed of formal elements, articulated in variable combinations, according to certain principles of structure.’

And further: Chacune des unités d’un système se définit ainsi par l’ensemble des relations qu’elle soutient avec les autres unités, et par les oppositions où elle entre; c’est une entité relative et oppositive, disait Saussure. (ibid) ‘Each of the units of a system is, thus, defined by the whole of the relations that it maintains with the other units and by the oppositions that it composes; this is a relative and oppositive entity, said Saussure.’

The relations that exist between the signs of different systems of the language imply that “no single meaning adequately accounts for all aspects of the use” (Reid 1983 [1979]: 43) of a sign. In other words, linguistic signs mean a set of concepts rather than have a strict single meaning. This happens because of the intelligence, efficiency and limited memory of human beings. These psychological characteristics of human beings underlie the fact that language possesses a limited number of invariant meanings as opposed to an indefinite number of various messages to which these meanings contribute. For this reason, language creates grammatical interlocks when one signal has meanings in different grammatical systems simultaneously. However, the Columbia School notion of interlock differs radically from the traditional notions of several meanings or functions that one form can have: To the extent that such varied functions are mutually contradictory, they point to erroneous analysis […]; to the extent that the various ‘meanings’ are not mutually contradictory, they should be traced, and ascribed, to the context to whose influ-

63


ence they are due. It should be clear that the confluence of different meanings from different systems cannot possibly be contradictory, though it may be more or less coherent. (García 1975: 56)

For example, besides the Occurrence System, verbs in French designate at least two grammatical systems: the System of Number and the System of Person. The System of Number opposes the meanings One for the singular and More Than One for the plural (cf. Diver 1987, Reid 1991). The System of Person opposes the meanings Speaker for the first person, Hearer for the second person and Other for the third person (cf. García 1975: 61–71). Within this Occurrence-Person-Number interlock, the signal [que tu] viennes (S) ‘[that you] might(s) come’ means Alternative to Occurrence, Hearer, One. In my study, I do not deal with these systems, unless their invariant meanings influence the encoder’s choice of mood. Another example of an interlock concerns the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive forms: the French Present and Imperfect Subjunctives. My hypothesis is that both forms simultaneously function in or constitute the interlock of two grammatical systems: the Occurrence System and the System of Relevance. Within the Occurrence System, they mean Alternative to Occurrence or Alternative for short. I also postulate the System of Relevance which the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives share simultaneously. The primary function of this system, according to Diver (1969: 48), is to deal with the relative relevance of an occurrence to the encoder or “to the main interest of the communication in process”. The semantic substance of the System of Relevance is, therefore, the degree of relevance of an occurrence taking place. I postulate this system as a relative scale of More Relevant alternative for the Present Subjunctive versus Less Relevant alternative for the Imperfect Subjunctive. As a result, within the Occurrence-Relevance interlock, the Present Subjunctive means Alternative, More Relevant, and the Imperfect Subjunctive means Alternative, Less Relevant. The near-minimal pair of examples (3)–(4) illustrates the use of the forms of the Subjunctive, motivated by the opposition of their invariant meanings within the Occurrence-Relevance interlock. The context of examples (3)–(4), taken from the novel Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936), is the correspondence between the writer Costals and his female admirers. Both examples emphasize alternatives, but differ in the degree of their relevance. In example (3), Costals implies that the way that leads to hell should not appear good. However, he deliberately chooses this way, i.e. this way is appropriate (more relevant) to his worldview. Therefore, the alternative that he is being faced with is emphasized by the Present Subjunctive, designated as (PS) in the example.


(3) Ne cessez pas d’avoir présent que je n’ai pas la foi, qu’elle ne me manque pas, que je pense ne l’avoir jamais, que je ne souhaite pas de l’avoir jamais. « Il y a une voie qui, encore qu’elle paraisse (PS) bonne quelquefois, conduit en enfer. » Peut-être suis-je cette voie. (Montherlant 1936 : 56–57) ‘Don’t forget that I’m a non-believer, that I don’t miss the faith, that I think I have never had it, that I don’t like to have it ever. “There is a way that leads to hell, although sometimes it appears (PS) [paraisse] to be good.” Perhaps I am following this way.’

On the other hand, in example (4), the girl implies that she has not refused Costals’s offer of books, but might. The girl does not choose the books. They are proposed or, in a certain sense, imposed by Costals. Moreover, she has already accepted Costals’s offer gratefully, i.e. it is already too late (less relevant) to refuse it. Therefore, the alternative that this girl is being faced with is emphasized by the Imperfect Subjunctive, designated as (IS) in the example. (4) J’accepte avec reconnaissance votre offre de livres anglais, encore que j’eusse (IS) préféré ne rien vous devoir en ce moment. (Montherlant 1936 : 44) ‘I accept your offer of English books with gratitude, although I would (IS) have preferred [eusse préféré] owing you nothing at present.’

3.5 The communicative and human factors in Columbia School theory As I have previously stated, the Columbia School approach differs from other sign-oriented approaches in that it connects the structure of language with its communicative function. This means that the postulation of signs is motivated by human communication which “requires a set of perceptible signals each of which is associated with some conceptual content [meaning]” (Contini-Morava 1995: 2). Besides the postulation of signs, a one-to-one correspondence between a signal and its meaning is also required as the most efficient relationship for successful communication. In Columbia School theory, an orientation of language to communication is called the communicative factor which is based, according to Tobin (1995), on the following principles: i. language is based on oppositions within the dyadic notion of the Janus-like linguistic sign; ii. the linguistic sign is composed of a signal inseparably linked to an invariant meaning which, together, form a symbiotic and synergetic relationship; iii. the signal is composed of phonemic and morphological oppositions (affixes, words, compounds, expressions) as well as other more abstract oppositions (e.g. zero (Ø), word order, etc.) which are accessible to the senses;

65


iv. invariant meanings are systematically opposed to each other in a systematic and synergetic way: (a) paradigmatically, based on their value relationships within lexical and grammatical systems; (b) syntagmatically, in discourse, to produce coherent messages. Thus, the theoretical and methodological motto of the communicative orientation of the semiotic or sign-oriented view of language may be summed up by in the following way: the invariant meaning of a linguistic sign motivates its distribution in language. (Tobin 1995: 11)

I show that the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive and the Indicative, functioning within the Occurrence System, motivate their distribution in different messages in French. The link between a relatively abstract invariant meaning and specific communicated messages, inferred from it, is indirect. If sentences conveyed ideas directly, then the creation of messages, on the one hand, and their comprehension, on the other, would remind one of a computational process. Ideas, contained in lexical and grammatical components of sentences would be simply summed up. It seems more plausible that the whole message is greater than ideas, conveyed by its component parts. In this case, the abstract invariant meanings of component parts serve as hints by which the decoder infers what is being communicated. The “discontinuity between instrument and output” (Diver 1980: 4), i.e. between the invariant meanings of signs and their various messages is bridged by human inferential abilities. Each and every message […] is an inference […] by the hearer based upon the signaled meanings, the larger linguistic context, the communicative situation, his knowledge of the speaker, his estimate of the relative plausibility of possible messages and, ultimately, the hearer’s entire life experience. (Reid 1983 [1979]: 325– 326)

The characteristics of the inferential abilities of human beings constitute the human factor. It plays the central role in Columbia School theory with the communicative factor. The human factor is the result of the Columbia School assumption that language is a device of human communication. This means the commitment to deal with the influence that psychological characteristics of human beings exert on the process of communication. According to Tobin (1995), the human factor includes the following basic principles: i. Human Intelligence – human beings can draw far-reaching conclusions from minimal cues, i.e. through the cognitive process of inference;


ii. Human Efficiency – Zipf ’s/Menzerath’s/Mandelbrot’s/Krylov’s/Beöthy’s Laws15 related to the investment of minimal effort for maximal results in the semiotic communication process; iii. Memory Limitations – human beings have large but limited memories which can be directly related to (1) and (2) above. (Tobin 1990: 49)

As applied to my analysis, examples (5) and (6) serve as instances of the decoder’s intelligence to draw far-reaching conclusions from minimal cues. These examples represent the use of the homonymous forms of the Present Subjunctive and the Present Indicative of regular verbs with -er infinitive. As previously stated, the differentiation between the Subjunctive and the Indicative of the verbs of this class is often problematic. Winters (1989) pronounces on this matter as follows:

15. Consider Tobin (1990) on the laws of synergesis: Zipf (1949) established the fundamental synergetic principle of ‘least effort’ (or ‘economy’) in all domains of language, the principle which leads language users to unifications or diversifications of the elements of language units in order to alleviate their physical and mental effort. Some of the more obvious examples of Zipf ’s Law with regard to the lexicon include the relationship between the frequency and length of words and the number of possible messages (dictionary or contextual meanings) they convey. According to Zipf, the frequent use of a word results in a reduction in its size on the one hand and an increase in the number of messages it may convey on the other. […] Mandelbrot (1953) further refined Zipf ’s Law by formulating that the encoder’s ‘economy of effort’ is subject to the constraint imposed by the need to effectively communicate information to the decoder. The most obvious example of Mandelbrot’s Law with regard to the lexicon is the number of messages (dictionary or contextual meanings) which can be assigned to a single word. The more messages a word conveys, the more ‘economical’ it is. […] Menzerath (1954) discussed the synergetic principles regarding the quantitative relationships between a whole and its parts: ‘the greater the whole, the smaller its parts’. One of the more obvious examples of Manzerath’s Law with regard to the lexicon is the relationship between the length of words and syllables. The longer the word, the shorter its syllables. Menzerath’s Law can also be extended to other realms within the lexicon […] The longer a word, the more morphemes it may contain and the more specific and complex its meaning. Krylov (1982) has shown that the distribution of meanings over the words in the lexicon follows a stochastic law restricting the process of polysemy – or the force of diversification – within the lexicon. […] While Krylov’s Law may be applied to the lexicon as a whole, similar findings regarding the heterogeneous frequencies of the different messages (and grammatical functions) which can be attributed to the same word were found by Beöthy (Beöthy and Altmann 1984a, b). (Tobin 1990: 49–51)

67


The lack of systematic morphological distinctness has been used to argue that the subjunctive is no longer a semantically distinct category in French (Winters 1989: 704).

Therefore, the decoder must enable his/her intelligence to infer the Subjunctive or the Indicative both from the invariant meanings of these verbs and from wider contextual information. Example (5) has been taken from the short story Myrrhine ‘The Role of Myrrhine’ by Maurois (1946). Its context deals with a play, written originally for a well-known actor, but changed to employ his mistress who becomes a principal character in the final version. When the playwright dies and the mistress gives up the actor, the latter wants to return to the original scenario, but the playwright’s widow refuses any change. In example (5), the verb toucher ‘to alter’ does not express mood explicitly. Therefore, from this example, one can infer two ambiguous messages: one with the Subjunctive and another with the Indicative. On the one hand, the decoder infers the Subjunctive (Alternative to Occurrence) from the verb permettre ‘to allow, permit’ implying that an occurrence might not take place. In fact, the realization of an allowed occurrence is uncertain because it has not yet happened. In addition, in the short story, the final version of the play differs from (is alternative to) the changes that might be allowed. Therefore, one can say that the playwright’s widow expresses an alternative in the Subjunctive while refusing these changes. On the other hand, someone who holds an “extreme” opinion could also infer the Indicative (Occurrence) from the same context. Its use would emphasize the absence of any alternative resulting from the resolute refusal of the playwright’s widow to make any changes in the play. (5) “Voyons, Laurent, vous formerez une Myrrhine sans aucune difficulté. Vous savez si bien faire ça… Quant à moi, je ne permettrai pas qu’on touche (S)/(?I) à la pièce de mon mari… Il ne faut pas séparer ce que Christian a uni…” (Maurois 1946 : 183) ‘“Look, Laurent, you will create a new Myrrhine without any difficulty. You know so well how to do it. As for me, I will not permit anyone to alter (S)/(?I) [touche] my husband’s play. There’s no need to tear apart something Christian has put together.”’ (Maurois 1949: 382)

While the inference of the Indicative from example (5) is arguable, example (6) is a more clear-cut instance of the ambiguous contextual inference of both the Subjunctive and the Indicative. The context of this example, taken from the detective story Le Revolver de Maigret by Simenon (1952), is the interrogation of a witness, conducted by the police captain Maigret. From example (6), one can infer two ambiguous messages: one with the Subjunctive and one with the Indica-


tive. Neither the verb marquer ‘to produce an impression’ nor the wider context provide an explicit indication of mood. In this example, both the Subjunctive and the Indicative can be equally inferred, depending on whether or not the decoder deduces an alternative to the actual occurrence. The decoder infers that the verb marquer is used in the Subjunctive, if he/she believes that the encoder’s intent is to emphasize an alternative. In this case, the inferred message is ‘might or might not produce an unfavorable impression’. The decoder infers that the verb marquer is used in the Indicative, if he/she thinks that the encoder’s intent is to emphasize an occurrence. In this case, the inferred message is ‘does produce an unfavorable impression’. (6) – Elle n’est pas du même monde que les autres locataires. Néanmoins, ce n’est pas quelqu’un qui marque (S)/(I) mal, vous comprenez? Pas une femme entretenue, par exemple. Elle a de l’argent. (Simenon 1952 : 92) ‘She is not like other tenants. However, this is not anybody who might(s) produce/produces (I) [marque] an unfavorable impression, do you understand? Not a kept woman, for example. She has money.’

As shown by examples (5)–(6), the decoder’s interpretation of ambiguous messages is based on human intelligence, meaning the ability to draw conclusions and to infer what kind of specific message is intended. Human efficiency to invest minimal effort for maximal results underlies the homonymy between the forms of the Subjunctive and the Indicative of the verbs of regular conjugation with -er infinitive. The class of -er conjugation has the most members and is the most productive. The vast majority of new verbs derive from this class. The presence of homonyms in language emphasizes the encoder’s interest in creating maximum specific messages by using “a minimal number of linguistic signs with vague invariant meanings” (Tobin 1995: 22). Human memory, on the one hand, is large enough to store a significant number of signs. However, on the other hand, it is too limited to keep an infinite number of messages to which these signs can contribute. The limitedness of human memory and, as a result, of the number of signs, stored in human memory, facilitates the decoder’s drawing conclusions in the process of communication. The limitedness of human memory also makes human beings reuse the same signals either with different meanings, creating homonymy, or for different grammatical systems simultaneously, creating interlocks of invariant meanings.

69


3.6 Communicative strategies in Columbia School theory Columbia School theory has developed the term communicative strategy (cf. Diver 1995; García 1975; Reid 1995) to refer to a regular or standardized combination of a particular meaning with other meanings to contribute to particular messages. The existence of communicative strategies results from the intelligence and the efficiency of human beings as well as from the limitedness of human memory. The three factors influence the native speakers’ preference for specific combinations of meanings, following a habitual “way of conveying the same message” (García 1975: 50). As pointed out by Diver in an unpublished work (1990): We have found it useful to group the uses of meanings into what we call “strategies,” “strategies of communication”. The term is not inappropriate, since what is involved is the various methods that are used to exploit this device of communication. It is a truism of the study of language that we get infinite output from a limited input. In the line of analysis being pursued here, this multiplication of messages comes from taking a particular meaning and combining it with a variety of other meanings. The message is then a resultant of the interaction in the combination. (Diver 1990 cited in Davis 2004: 155)

Davis (2004) has argued against the concept of strategies as follows: It should be clear that CS [Columbia School] quantitative analysis did not need to be rescued by any elevation of inferential pathways to the status of theoretical constructs; meanings as theoretical constructs are sufficient, in conjunction with principles of the communicative orientation. (Davis 2004: 159)

In other words, in the triad “meaning → strategy → message”, Davis considers the concept of strategy superfluous. Columbia School analysis can be done – and can be done better – without the distracting intrusion of extraneous categories (strategies) into the picture. (Davis 2004: 169)

The fact that meanings contribute to messages does not necessarily mean that communicative strategies do not have psychological reality for native speakers or that the contribution must represent a “meaning → message” dyad. The postulation of communicative strategies can be considered a tendency toward the conformity and the systematization of the use of linguistic signs. It results from the “pressure” that a social group exerts “on its own members in the direction of a standardized usage” (Diver 1995: 78) that contributes to better communication. The psychological reality of communicative strategies for native speakers is


manifested by their comments on unidiomatic linguistic usage such as on le dirait autrement en français ‘we would say it another way in French’. At the same time, the combinations of particular meanings can fulfill specific communicative purposes that “vary from individual to individual” (Diver 1995: 78). Therefore, one may be faced with “incompatible meanings”, occasionally combined “to produce a special communicative effect” (Reid 1995: 126). Such combinations are traditionally referred to as stylistic devices. So-called incoherent messages happen because meanings “do not combine purely in accordance with their “intrinsic nature,” the way chemical elements do” (Davis 2004: 157). As stated by Reid (1995): The collocation of linguistic meanings, then, is a goal-directed event, whereas a chemical reaction is not. And it stands to reason that speakers will feel free to combine meanings guided by the goal at which they are aiming, unconstrained by any semantic calculus operating on meanings in the abstract. (Reid 1995: 125)

The application of communicative strategies to produce a coherent message as well as “forced marriages” (Reid 1995: 126) between meanings can be explained by the invariant meanings of linguistic signs. For example, the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative to characterize antecedents of relative clauses represents two different communicative strategies: a. The Subjunctive and the Indicative combine with indefinite pronouns such as quelqu’un ‘somebody’, quelque chose ‘something’, etc. This combination is used either to avoid or to assume, respectively, the encoder’s taking responsibility for the outcome of an occurrence. Examples (7)–(8) illustrate this difference. (7) Je cherche quelque chose qu’on puisse (S) leur offrir. ‘I’m looking for something that one could (S) [puisse] give them as a present.’ (8) Je cherche quelque chose qu’on peut (I) leur offrir. ‘I’m looking for something that one can (I) [peut] give them as a present.’

b. The Subjunctive and the Indicative combine with the superlative expressions le (la, les) plus ‘the most’ or le (la, les) moins ‘the least’, etc. This combination is used either to emphasize the opposite (alternative) outcome of an occurrence or to assert the actual outcome, respectively. Examples (9)–(10) illustrate this difference. (9) C’est la meilleure chose qu’on puisse (S) leur offrir. ‘It’s the best thing that one could (S) [puisse] give them as a present.’

71

72


(10) C’est la meilleure chose qu’on peut (I) leur offrir. ‘It’s the best thing that one can (I) [peut] give them as a present.’

The uses of the Subjunctive in example (7) versus example (9) as well as the uses of the Indicative in example (8) versus example (10) represent different communicative strategies because: a. Each combination of the meanings of the Subjunctive or the Indicative with the meanings of other signs is chosen for a different purpose. b. The decoder infers different information from each combination of these meanings. However, both uses of the Subjunctive and the Indicative can be explained by the same invariant meanings Alternative to Occurrence and Occurrence, respectively. Paraphrasing Reid (1995: 133), I contend that the two sets of examples do not differ grammatically, only pragmatically – only with respect to what the encoder is attempting to convey with Alternative to Occurrence or Occurrence in a particular occasion. Examples (7) and (9) with the Subjunctive illustrate my claim. The Subjunctive is used with quelque chose ‘something’ in example (7) to avoid the encoder’s taking responsibility for the outcome of the occurrence by presenting an undifferentiated antecedent. From this combination, the decoder infers the encoder’s uncertainty as to whether that antecedent might be differentiated. The Subjunctive is used with the superlative la meilleure ‘the best’ in example (9) to emphasize the opposite (alternative) outcome of the occurrence by presenting an antecedent that differs from (is opposed to) all possible antecedents. From this combination, the decoder infers that nothing more appropriate than this antecedent could be differentiated or that this is the most appropriate possible antecedent. Though the use of the Subjunctive in examples (7) and (9) represents different communicative strategies, both Subjunctives are “grammatically identical” (Reid 1995: 133). They are motivated by the same invariant meaning Alternative to Occurrence that explains them both. This meaning reorients the decoder’s attention from an occurrence to its alternative. On the one hand, it allows the encoder to deemphasize his/her taking responsibility for the outcome of an occurrence. From this reorientation, the decoder infers the uncertainty of that outcome, as in example (7). On the other hand, it allows the encoder to emphasize the opposite (alternative) outcome of an occurrence. The alternative is implied by the superlative that opposes a selected antecedent to all possible antecedents. From this opposition, the decoder infers the most appropriate possible antecedent, as in example (9).


3.7 Summary of the Columbia School principles Contini-Morava (1995: 19, 24) has summarized the principles that distinguish Columbia School theory from the formerly discussed sign-oriented theories and that consist in the following: 1. Columbia School theory considers language to be both a communicative device and an instance of human behavior. This means the commitment to deal with the sign-oriented structure of language based on a one signal-one meaning relationship as well as to take into account psychological characteristics of human beings in the process of communication. 2. In Columbia School theory, “grammatical meanings are organized into systems, each of which exhaustively subdivides a particular semantic domain, or “substance”. 3. The postulated meanings of Columbia School theory “may be arranged in a scale, indicating a greater or a lesser degree of the shared semantic substance”. 4. “In Columbia School theory it is possible for a set of signals to indicate information about more than one semantic domain simultaneously”, forming a grammatical “interlock”. 5. The Columbia School has developed the notion of communicative strategy, “a routinized exploitation of a given meaning, so that it is regularly used to infer a particular type of message”. 6. The Columbia School “does not confine its validation to the individual sentence, but also considers the relation between grammatical meaning and the “macro-level” discourse”. The Columbia School also relies extensively “on quantitative methods of validation” showing “a statistical skewing in favor of one or the other meaning”. The next step of the analysis is to postulate the semantic substance of the Occurrence System of French mood as well as the invariant meanings of its signs: the Indicative and the Subjunctive. These meanings are validated both qualitatively and quantitatively. I base my analysis on the theoretical principles of sign-oriented analysis as they have been summarized by Tobin (1995): i.

Language is a holistic code, a system of systems which can be connected to linguistic signs which integrate signals and meanings and their relationships. ii. Invariance is the isomorphic foundation of all aspects of this code and therefore the study of language is the search for invariance in the signals and meanings and their relationships within this code.

73

74


iii. The holistic system of language which is to be studied isomorphically must be viewed as a tool of communication used by human beings. The system of language will therefore directly and indirectly reflect both its function as a tool of communication (the establishment of oppositions in signals and meanings and their relationships) as well as the users of this tool of communication, i.e. human beings. iv. Invariant meaning motivates the distribution of linguistic signs and their relationships in all aspects of this code: in signals where the systematic relationship of the arbitrary connection between signal and meaning may iconically reflect extralinguistic reality in their linguistic (phonetic, phonological and morphological) units, their (syntactic) combinations, and their (semantic) and extralinguistic (pragmatic) functions all of which are either given or inferred from invariant meanings in the process of going from invariant sign meaning to contextual discourse function. v. Invariant meaning underlies the code level and should not be confused with the exploitation of this code. Sentence and discourse messages and the functions of their component parts are not invariant meanings. In other words, invariant meanings are not equivalent to sentence or dictionary or discourse messages nor to the syntactic, logical, or pragmatic communicative discourse functions and exploitations of this code which are all inferred from and motivated by invariant meanings of the code. vi. All the invariants of the language code are not given in advance, i.e. are not preconceived categories, but must be postulated, validated, i.e. discovered. Perhaps, the primary or only hypothetical unit in the discovery procedure is that of the linguistic sign and its systematic paradigmatic and syntagmatic value relationships within the code based on invariant meaning. (Tobin 1995: 28–29)

chapter 4

Hypothesis

I postulate the semantic substance of the Occurrence System, whose primary function is to deal with an occurrence taking place. I postulate as well the invariant meanings of the Saussurean signals, traditionally associated with the Subjunctive and the Indicative, which are in an oppositional relationship within this Occurrence System. I claim that the opposition of the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive and the Indicative motivates their use and distribution in French.

4.1 The Occurrence System In most languages, there are lexical signs traditionally associated with the finite forms of verbs. These signs designate occurrences (events, actions or states of being), “something that is localized in time, that may or may not happen, that involves entities which contribute to a greater or lesser extent to its realization” (Reid 1983 [1979]: 44). The meanings that these signs convey distinguish them from other lexical signs that, for example, designate entities (nouns, in traditional terminology) participating in occurrences, or characteristics (adjectives, in traditional terminology), attributed to entities. These meanings form a grammatical system, originally proposed by Diver (1969: 47–48) and developed by Reid (1974: 50–51) who referred to it as the Occurrence system. The semantic substance of this Occurrence System deals with “whether and how likely it is that the event did take place” (Diver 1969: 48). Therefore, it can be defined as the nature of an occurrence taking place, for short. I postulate that the Subjunctive and the Indicative are both Saussurean signals, inseparably paired with their respective invariant meanings that contribute to different messages and motivate their distribution in French. As previously stated, the Indicative and the Subjunctive are viewed in opposition to each other within the Occurrence System that allows the encoder: 1. To emphasize with the Indicative his/her commitment to an occurrence by asserting its realization. 2. To avoid with the Subjunctive his/her commitment to an occurrence by implying another, alternative occurrence.

76


Therefore, I postulate that within the Occurrence System, the Indicative means Occurrence, whereas the Subjunctive means Alternative to Occurrence.16 Occurrence means a situation, experienced in the present or the past, or expected to take place in the future and expressed by the Indicative. Alternative means the contextual “implication of an expectation to the contrary of whatever is expressed” (Nathan & Epro 1984: 520) by the Subjunctive, i.e. a departure from the encoder’s expectations. As previously stated, besides the meanings of the Occurrence System, the French verbs designate number within the System of Number and person within the System of Person. However, this study does not deal with these meanings, unless their correlation with the meanings of the Occurrence System influences the distribution of verbs. Examples (11)–(12) represent opposite messages with two kinds of occurrences, each signaled by the opposition of the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. (11) Je ne pense pas qu’il est (I) malade. ‘I don’t think he is (I) [est] sick.’ (12) Je ne pense pas qu’il soit (S) malade. ‘I don’t think he may (S) be [soit] sick.’

The French Occurrence System with respect to the nature of an occurrence, expressed by the opposition of the Indicative versus the Subjunctive, can be represented as follows: 1. Indicative – meaning Occurrence 2. Subjunctive – meaning Alternative to Occurrence 16. I have formerly pointed out that the meaning Alternative has been suggested by the signoriented study of the Spanish Subjunctive of de Jonge (1999, 2001, 2004). This meaning, applied to French, explains the distribution of the French Subjunctive. For the Spanish Subjunctive, de Jonge postulates the notion of ‘relevance’ to rule out “presuppositions, truth value, logic, or pragmatic or conversational implicatures, etc.” (Tobin 1995: 66) that are outside of language: For any given situation it is possible to think of an alternative one, but this alternative situation is not necessarily relevant in the given context. (de Jonge 2001: 83) As previously stated, Columbia school theory does not equate invariant meanings with “sentence or dictionary or discourse messages” nor with “the syntactic, logical, or pragmatic communicative discourse functions and exploitations of this code” (Tobin 1995: 29). Therefore, I postulate the invariant meaning of the French Subjunctive just as Alternative to Occurrence in order not to disprove these “extralinguistic elements of pragmatics” (ibid: 66) and to avoid confusion with the System of Relevance. As I will show subsequently, this system deals with the relative relevance of an occurrence to the encoder or the communication in progress and underlies the distribution of the Subjunctive forms in French.

Chapter 4. Hypothesis

Semantic substance Signal Nature of an occurrence taking place Indicative Subjunctive

Meaning Occurrence Alternative to Occurrence

Figure 2. The Indicative versus the Subjunctive within the Occurrence System in French

The Indicative’s meaning Occurrence is appropriate for committing to an occurrence, as in example (11). This meaning implies the real or certain outcome from the encoder’s point of view. The Subjunctive’s meaning Alternative to Occurrence is more appropriate for avoiding making commitment to an occurrence, as in example (12). It reorients the decoder’s attention from the actual outcome to its possible alternative. As a result, this meaning implies the unreal, doubtful or another outcome, which is different from the encoder’s expectations.

4.2 Invariant meaning versus contextual messages It might be argued that if one asks native speakers to explain the meaning of the Subjunctive by providing examples of its use, the expression alternative to occurrence will not necessarily cross their minds. Native speakers will instead employ expressions of doubt, uncertainty, obligation, desire, etc., as in the set of examples (13)–(15): (13) Je doute qu’il revienne (S). ‘I doubt that he will (S) come [revienne] again.’ (14) Il faut qu’il parte (S). ‘It is necessary that he go (S) [parte].’ (15) J’aimerais que mon article soit (S) publié. ‘I would like my article to be (S) [soit] published.’

These expressions represent specific communicated messages that are derived from or motivated by the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive. These messages are outside of linguistic analysis, as previously stated. The reason why native speakers “tend in any case to offer an example in the guise of explanation” (Winters 1993: 275) and ascribe an invariant meaning to variable messages is that the link between a meaning and messages is indirect and, therefore, intangible. This link is too abstract and complex to be grasped without reflection (Saussure 2001 [1916]: 107; 1983 [1916]: 73), even by native speakers who use it daily. In addition, the meaning Alternative to Occurrence is broader or more abstract than the specific messages of doubt, uncertainty, obligation, desire, etc.

77

78


The relative abstractness of this invariant meaning contributes to the variety of messages that deal with doubtful, uncertain, required or desired occurrences. The invariant meaning serves only as a hint from which the decoder infers an intended message. The Indicative provides the decoder with the hint that in the given message, it is an occurrence per se that matters. The Subjunctive informs the decoder that in the given message, it is a feasible alternative occurrence that matters.

4.3 Meaningful contrast between the Subjunctive and the Indicative From the two forms, the Indicative signals the “default option” (García 1994: 334), while the Subjunctive signals “local departures from a norm”. It suggests “that the communication concerns a state of affairs different from what would (normally) have been anticipated” (ibid). Figure 3 represents the relationship between an occurrence, expressed by the Indicative, and its alternative, expressed by the Subjunctive.

Occurrence

Alternative to

Occurrence

Figure 3. Meaningful opposition of Occurrence versus Alternative to Occurrence within the Occurrence System

It follows from Figure 3 that the meaning Alternative to Occurrence of the Subjunctive is more complex than the meaning Occurrence of the Indicative. The Subjunctive both refers to an occurrence and implies its alternative. Therefore, the Subjunctive serves as “an attention-calling device” (García 1994: 333) whose use within the French Occurrence System is very iconic because: a. The simultaneous reference to an occurrence and the implication of its alternative allows the encoder to use the Subjunctive to express equal positive chances (Guillaume’s chances d’être) and negative chances (Guillaume’s chances de ne pas être) (cf. Guillaume 1970) for an occurrence to take place (cf. Hamlet’s “to be or not to be”17).

17. Hamlet’s famous “to be or not be” has been suggested by Tobin in personal conversation.


b. The implication of an alternative occurrence means that the Subjunctive provides additional information about an occurrence rather than just represents an occurrence as being considered by the encoder. c. Additional information, provided by the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive, favors its use in the subordinate clause that presents what is described in the main clause. d. Additional information, provided by the Subjunctive, implies that its invariant meaning is communicatively more complex and salient than the invariant meaning of the Indicative. e. The more complex and salient meaning of the Subjunctive determines its infrequency in French as opposed to the frequency of the Indicative. f. Lunn (1989b) notes in her analysis of the Spanish Subjunctive that native speaking children acquire this mood later. While I have no data on the acquisition of the French Subjunctive, based on the similarity between the invariant meanings of both Subjunctives, I suppose that the French Subjunctive is acquired approximately as late as the Spanish Subjunctive. I attribute the late acquisition of the Subjunctive to its cognitive complexity and salience. But Lunn attributes it to the pragmatic feature of the Spanish Subjunctive as a marker of low-priority information: Subjunctive endings appear on verbs in clauses that a speaker has chosen not to emphasize. Of course, lexical and syntactic backgrounding mechanisms which are complementary to the subjunctive also conspire to de-emphasize subjunctive-marked clauses. It is not surprising that the morphology in de-emphasized clauses is not noticed – and so not acquired – until late in the acquisition sequence. (Lunn 1989b: 258, note 3)

The features of the Subjunctive as “an attention-calling device” show that within the opposition between the Indicative and the Subjunctive, the former is the unmarked member, and the latter is the marked member of the pair, according to the Jakobsonian concept of markedness (cf. Jakobson 1984: 41–58, 1990: 134–140). The meaningful contrast between the Indicative and the Subjunctive is employed by native speakers for different communicative purposes. With the Indicative, the encoder draws the decoder’s attention to a normal state of affairs, experienced in the present or the past, or expected to take place in the future. The invariant meaning of the Indicative, hence, focuses the decoder’s attention on an occurrence, implying the encoder’s commitment to its outcome. With the Subjunctive, the encoder reorients the decoder’s attention to a possible alternative state of affairs. The invariant meaning of the Subjunctive, hence, focuses the decoder’s attention on an alternative occurrence, deemphasizing the encoder’s commitment to the outcome of the actual occurrence.

79


4.4 Summary and conclusions To summarize, Columbia School theory shares the Saussurean view of language as an instrument of communication (Diver 1980: 3). This implies that language is an inventory of signs formed by signals and their invariant meanings, used to communicate messages. Neither signals nor meanings are known in advance and, therefore, they must be postulated simultaneously because they form a single whole and cannot be examined separately from each other. Moreover, the meanings of linguistic signs can be determined only by their opposition to other meanings within a common semantic substance or domain. The Columbia School makes a clear-cut distinction between the single invariant meaning of a sign and multiple variable messages with it. While the former is part of a language system (Saussure’s langue), the latter are specific interpretations of a sign, being part of the process of discourse (Saussure’s parole). The invariance of linguistic meanings is imposed by the communicative function of language as the most efficient combination for successful communication. At the same time, the meanings are only hints for the decoder whose inferential abilities help him/her to “decipher” communicated messages. Therefore, the Columbia School deals with the characteristics of the inferential abilities of human beings which, along with the economy and limited memory of human beings, constitute the human factor. In particular, the human factor accounts for the communicative strategies exploited by native speakers to convey specific messages in a systematic way. I have postulated the Indicative and the Subjunctive as linguistic signs sharing the Occurrence System, whose semantic substance deals with the nature of an occurrence taking place. I have claimed that the Indicative focuses the decoder’s attention on an occurrence. Therefore, I have postulated that this mood invariably means Occurrence within the Occurrence System. I have claimed that the Subjunctive focuses the decoder’s attention on an alternative occurrence. Therefore, I have postulated that within the Occurrence System, the Subjunctive invariably means Alternative to Occurrence. I have also postulated that the invariant meanings of these signs motivate their use in diverse contextual messages and serve as an explanation for their distribution in French. To validate this hypothesis, I present the “micro-level” analysis of individual examples, arranged according to particular communicative strategies, and the “macro-level” analysis of entire texts. Both analyses show how the encoder exploits the opposition between the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive to communicate specific messages. The analyses also show specific discourse situations which favor one mood and disfavor the other. The data for this study consist of texts of different styles and genres of twentieth-century French literature. Preference is shown for contexts where both moods could occur, specifically


the nominal, adverbial and relative clauses, introduced by some forms of the conjunction que ‘that’ and the relative pronouns qui ‘who’, que ‘whom’/’which’/’that’, dont ‘whose’/’of which’ and où ‘where’/’when’.

81

part 3

“Micro-level” analysis

Interaction between grammatical systems The next step of the analysis is to show that the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive motivate their distribution. I show that the meaning Occurrence contributes to the communicated messages when the Indicative appears and that the meaning Alternative to Occurrence contributes to the messages when the Subjunctive appears. The validation of the motivated distribution of both moods is based both on their invariant meanings and on the invariant meanings of other linguistic signs with which these moods correlate. This is necessary because, as previously stated, language constitutes a “system of systems composed of various sub-systems […] which are organized internally and systematically related to each other” (Tobin 1990: 47). A correlation occurs between grammatical systems that share the same semantic domain. This correlation is manifested by the preferred use of one mood over the other with the signs of other correlating systems. For example, I subsequently show that the Occurrence System correlates with negation. The correlation is manifested by the favoring of the Subjunctive for particular linguistic contexts where negation is emphasized explicitly or implicitly. This favoring is contributed to by the similarity between the invariant meaning Alternative to Occurrence of the Subjunctive (Hamlet’s “to be or not to be”) and negation that also implies an alternative. Each correlation between grammatical systems is viewed “as an option which speakers may choose” (Lunn 1989a: 690) to produce a communicative effect. A similar effect may be produced in different ways, but not all the possibilities are equally exploited by native speakers. Native speakers prefer the routine combinations of signs to contribute to particular messages. As previously pointed out, these combinations are called communicative strategies in Columbia School theory (cf. Diver 1995; García 1975; Reid 1995). I have grouped the data of my analysis around the communicative strategies of the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. These strategies characterize the exploitation of both moods in correlation with the signs of other language sys-

84


tems to emphasize an occurrence or an alternative to an occurrence, respectively. The basic strategies are postulated as follows: 1. The Occurrence System opposition is used to differentiate the degree of the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence, taking place. I demonstrate that the encoder uses the Indicative to commit to an occurrence, whereas the Subjunctive is used to deemphasize the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. 2. The Occurrence System opposition is used to distinguish a relatively objective description of an occurrence from a subjective comment on it. By “subjective comment”, I mean cases where the encoder focuses attention on his/her own subjective attitude towards the situation instead of merely presenting its objective description. For more details, see Tobin (1990: 81, 112–114, 1995: 52– 54). It is shown that the encoder uses the Indicative to present the relatively objective description of an occurrence, whereas the Subjunctive is used for its subjective interpretation. 3. The Occurrence System opposition is used to distinguish between an asserted occurrence and its feasible (alternative) counterpart. I show that the encoder uses the Indicative to assert an occurrence, whereas the Subjunctive is used to deny an occurrence in order to imply its alternative. The following data represent the “micro-level” analysis of individual examples with the Indicative, used to emphasize an occurrence, and the Subjunctive, used to emphasize an alternative to an occurrence.

chapter 5

Occurrence System and the encoder’s commitment

As previously stated, the use of the meaningful opposition between the Indicative and the Subjunctive arises from the need to emphasize or deemphasize particular information. The decoder infers from the use of this opposition the degree of the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. The Indicative is used to make the decoder believe in an occurrence, as the encoder presents it. The Subjunctive is used to draw the decoder’s attention to an alternative occurrence that the encoder does not rule out either. Therefore, the Indicative shows that the encoder commits to an occurrence, whereas the Subjunctive implies that the encoder avoids committing to an occurrence. The encoder’s commitment is manifested by the following major distinctions: 1. The distinction between the certainty and the uncertainty of an occurrence: I propose that the Indicative’s meaning Occurrence is more appropriate to deal with occurrences that are certain, whereas the Subjunctive’s meaning Alternative to Occurrence is more appropriate to deal with uncertain occurrences. 2. The distinction between personalized and depersonalized occurrences: I demonstrate that the Indicative’s meaning Occurrence is more appropriate to personalize an occurrence, i.e. to indicate someone who takes responsibility for its outcome. The Subjunctive’s meaning Alternative to Occurrence is more appropriate to depersonalize an occurrence, i.e. to avoid referring to someone who could take responsibility for its outcome. 3. The distinction in the degree of attention focused on the subject of an occurrence. Specifically I refer to French interrogative sentences in which the choice of mood in the subordinate clause can be favored by the formal position of the subject in the main clause. The word order when the subject precedes the verb is called direct (Subject-Verb or SV) word order. The word order when the subject is preceded by the verb is called indirect (Verb-Subject or VS) word order. Following Gildin (1982, 1989), I consider word order a linguistic sign that underlies the Focus System. According to Gildin, the semantic substance of the Focus System is the concentration of attention. Within this


system, the direct (SV) word order means in focus (strong concentration of attention on the subject). The indirect (VS) word order means not in focus (weak concentration of attention on the subject). Gildin does not deal with word order in interrogative sentences. Therefore, my preliminary hypothesis is that in interrogative sentences, the direct (SV) word order means In Focus, whereas the indirect (VS) word order means Not In Focus. The meaning In Focus corresponds to a higher degree of attention that the encoder assigns to the subject. The subject In Focus deserves the encoder’s and, hence, the decoder’s attention, which implies that the encoder commits to the subject’s perception of an occurrence. The meaning Not In Focus corresponds to a lower degree of the encoder’s attention assigned to the subject. It implies that the encoder does not commit to the subject’s perception of an occurrence. The Indicative’s meaning Occurrence is shown to be more appropriate to subordinate clauses with the direct word order in the main clause, whereas the Subjunctive’s meaning Alternative to Occurrence is more appropriate to subordinate clauses with the indirect word order in the main clause.

5.1 The certainty versus the uncertainty of an occurrence The Indicative makes the decoder infer the certainty of an occurrence because it is based on facts, evidence, the encoder’s knowledge or strong belief. From the Subjunctive, the decoder infers that the encoder is not confident of the certainty of an occurrence. Example (1) illustrates the difference between the certainty of an occurrence, expressed by the Indicative, and the uncertainty of an occurrence, expressed by the Subjunctive. The context of this example, taken from the short story Ariane, ma sœur ‘Harpies on the Shore’18 by Maurois (1946), is a letter from the writer Jerome Vence to his former wife Thérèse. Jerome wants Thérèse to know that despite her firm belief that no woman could really be happy with him, he has found one who loves him. The decoder infers from the Subjunctive that Thérèse does not know yet (and it is uncertain whether she will) that Jerome has found love with another woman. The Indicative just presents Jerome’s new love as a fact. (1) Je veux que tu saches (S) que, moi aussi, depuis notre divorce, j’ai (I) trouvé l’amour. (Maurois 1946 : 29)

18. Harpies on the Shore (Maurois 1949) is the English version of the short story Ariane, ma sœur (Maurois 1946) the examples from which I have used in the “micro-level” analysis.

Chapter 5. Occurrence System and the encoder’s commitment

‘I want you to know (S) [saches] that I too have (I) discovered [ai trouvé] love since we were divorced.’ (Maurois 1949: 305)

It might be argued that the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative in example (1) is governed by the verbs vouloir ‘to want’ and savoir ‘to know’. I have formerly shown the inadequacy of the government of French mood (cf. examples (9)–(14) from the Preface) that is also true for the verbs savoir and vouloir. The set of examples (2)–(3) illustrates this point. In example (2), taken from the novel La Vouivre by Aymé (1972), the Subjunctive follows the verb savoir which is argued to govern the Indicative, as in example (1). In example (2), the beautiful folkloric creature la Vouivre tries to understand the nature of human emotions. La Vouivre uses the Subjunctive when she imagines herself a mortal human being for whom each event in his/her short life seems significant. The Subjunctive shows the decoder that by imagining herself a human being, la Vouivre does not disregard the alternative that she is immortal. (2) – Si je savais que je doive (S) mourir, mettons dans trente ans, est-ce que tu crois que je changerais ? (Aymé 1972 : 238) ‘“If I knew that I have (S) to [doive] die, let’s say in thirty years, do you believe that I would change?”’

It might be claimed that the Subjunctive is used in example (2) because the verb savoir introduces a hypothesized occurrence. Consider Grevisse (2001) on this matter: Aux supports exprimant le doute ou la négation, on peut joindre les supports exprimant une constatation, une certitude, une vraisemblance ou une probabilité, quand ils sont accompagnés d’une négation ou quand ils sont soit dans une phrase interrogative soit dans une proposition de condition […] (Grevisse 2001 : 1609) ‘To the triggers that express doubt or negation, one can add the triggers that express an observation, a certainty, a likelihood or a probability when they are used with negation or when they appear either in an interrogative sentence or in a conditional clause […]’

However, I have shown by example (7) from the Preface that the Subjunctive can appear after an asserted fact. (7) […] Il est exact que ce soit (S) écrit, mais ce qui est écrit est une erreur. (Vian 1962 : 28–29) “[…] “It’s right that this is (S) [soit] written, but what is written is a mistake.”’

87

88


In addition, Grevisse acknowledges further that sentences that express a hypothetical, interrogated or negated certainty or probability do not always trigger the Subjunctive (cf. also Soutet 2000: 77). The data, provided by Nordahl (1969: 227– 233), show that the Subjunctive is quite infrequent in hypothetical sentences, as example (2). What is much more exceptional is the Indicative in example (3) following the verb vouloir ‘to want’ that should have governed the Subjunctive, as in example (1). Example (3) has been taken from the short story Traversée de Paris ‘Crossing Paris’ by Aymé (1947) that deals with two Parisians who secretly deliver pork, crossing the city occupied by the Nazis. One of them suggests reselling the pork and sharing the money, to which the second companion replies sharply. The Indicative in this example shows the rejection of any alternative to the decoder. While rejecting any possibility of the deal, Martin says to his so-called companion that he looks like a dishonest vender and, therefore, nobody will do business with him. (3) Je te trouve jeune, répliqua Martin. Fringué comme tu es, avec ta gueule déjà pas franche, je te trouve jeune d’aller croire que tu pourrais faire le grossium en viande. Des paumés comme toi, des mal habillés, je veux qu’on les voit (I) venir de loin. (Aymé 1947 : 49) ‘I think you are young, retorted Martin. Dressed up as you are, with your shady face, I think you are young if you believe that you could become a bigwig of meat sale. Dropouts and slovens like you, I claim that one sees (I) [voit] them from afar.’

Sentence-oriented grammar provides the following explanations for the use of the Indicative after the verb vouloir ‘to want’: 1. The polysemous explanation: the verb vouloir is claimed to have different meanings. A volitive vouloir governs the Subjunctive, whereas a declarative vouloir governs the Indicative. However, Grevisse (2001: 1612) and Nordahl (1969: 41) acknowledge that no one could say which construction with vouloir governs only the Indicative or only the Subjunctive. 2. The stylistic explanation: the use of the Indicative is the result of the artistic purpose of the author to present a character who speaks as a stranger from the social or another point of view or who simply does not manage French (cf. Nordahl 1969: 41–42). However, to say that the author uses the Indicative where the Subjunctive is required to show that a character does not quite manage French is rather an extra-linguistic explanation. But, in example (3), this explanation does not fit either because the character of Martin is a Parisian who manages French well.


Examples (2)–(3) demonstrate that sentence-oriented approaches appeal to the notion of exceptional use each time they have to explain mismatch between their theory and “the data of actual language” (Contini-Morava 1983: 31). The Columbia School approach explains the distribution of linguistic forms as being contributed to by their invariant meanings to communicate messages. For example, the meaning Alternative to Occurrence of the Subjunctive motivates its use for the emphasis of an uncertain occurrence and contributes to messages that convey this uncertainty. As previously stated, this meaning allows the encoder to avoid committing to an occurrence. It reorients the decoder’s attention to an alternative outcome, from which the decoder infers the uncertainty of an occurrence. The uncertainty of an occurrence appears in sentences that express: 1. Doubt. In example (4), taken from the play Rhinocéros by Ionesco (1959), doubt is expressed explicitly, showing that the encoder is not committed to an occurrence. The context of this example deals with two friends who discuss a sudden transformation of their colleague into a rhinoceros. Berenger through his use of the Subjunctive emphasizes his doubt that such a transformation would be a pleasure. (4) Jean : Vous voyez le mal partout. Puisque ça lui fait plaisir de devenir rhinocéros, puisque ça lui fait plaisir ! Il n’y a rien d’extraordinaire à cela. Bérenger : Évidemment, il n’y a rien d’extraordinaire à cela. Pourtant, je doute que ça lui fasse (S) tellement plaisir. (Ionesco 1959 : 158) ‘Jean: You always see the black side of everything. It obviously gave him great pleasure to turn into a rhinoceros. There’s nothing extraordinary in that. Berenger: There’s nothing extraordinary in it, but I doubt if it gave (S) [fasse] him much pleasure.’ (Ionesco 1960: 66)

The appropriateness of the Subjunctive after negation ne pas douter ‘not to doubt’ has been disputed. There is an opinion that the Subjunctive in this context is illogical (cf. Grevisse 2001: 1609; Harmer 1954: 199, 264; Le Bidois 1968b: 344–345). However, ne pas douter expresses the absence of doubt, which is not the same as certainty (cf. Moignet 1959: 104). Therefore, this expression can correlate both with the Subjunctive and with the Indicative. According to the data, provided by Nordahl (1969: 140, 144), the rate of the Subjunctive, used after ne pas douter que, is 79.7% (126 examples with the Subjunctive versus 32 with the Indicative). However, Nordahl does not explain this descriptive fact and argues that the choice between the Indicative and the Subjunctive is a matter of subtle nuances that can be determined only in context. I claim that the Indicative is used when the encoder emphasizes the absence of any alternative, as in example (5). The Subjunctive is used when the emphasis is on an alternative to an occurrence, as in example (6).

89


In example (5), taken from the play Le Malentendu ‘The Misunderstanding’ by Camus (1958), a prodigal son returns after twenty years. He decides to book a room as a traveler in his mother and sister’s hotel. The Indicative appears when he tries to dispel their doubts about his ability to pay. (5) Vous ne devez pas douter que je suis (I) solvable et je ne donne pas l’impression, j’imagine, d’un homme qui a quelque méfait à se reprocher. (Camus 1958 : 208) ‘You have no reason to doubt my solvency (I) [suis], and I hardly think I give the impression of someone with a crime on his conscience.’ (Camus 1947a: 131)

In example (6), taken from La Vouivre by Aymé (1972), the priest of a village talks about the attacks of snakes to which the villagers have been recently subject. The priest has no doubt that la Vouivre, the Lady of reptiles, is responsible for these attacks. However, Voiturier, the mayor of the village, has expressed an alternative opinion that it is a banal accident. The priest cannot disregard this opinion because Voiturier is his main opponent in the village. Therefore, he considers this alternative and emphasizes it with the Subjunctive. (6) Il [le curé] exposa rapidement l’affaire. […] Certes, on aurait pu prétendre, et Voiturier n’y manqua pas, qu’il s’agissait d’un accident banal, ces amas de pierrailles étant fréquemment des nids de serpents. Mais comme personne n’avait été piqué depuis très longtemps, à l’exception de Beuillat et son cas était particulier, on ne douta pas que la Vouivre fût (S) responsable. (Aymé 1972 : 239–240) ‘The priest stated quickly the case. [...] Surely, one could claim, and Voiturier really did this, that it was about a banal accident because snakes often nested in this mass of chippings. But since nobody had been bitten for a very long time, except for Beuillat, and this was a special case, one had no doubt that la Vouivre was (S) [fût] behind that.’

To express doubt implicitly and to avoid committing to an occurrence, French possesses expressions of reserved affirmation with the verb savoir ‘to know’, as in examples (7)–(8). Example (7) has been taken from the novel Un crime by Bernanos (1969) [1935] that concerns the investigation of two killings in the village of Mégère. The investigator learns from his subordinates that the priest of Mégère, an important witness, has left the village suddenly. In example (7), he claims reservedly, that to his knowledge, the priest was not forced to stay at home.


The Subjunctive implies that he might not know anything and, therefore, avoids committing to an occurrence.19 (7) D’ailleurs, M. le curé de Mégère a le droit d’aller et venir comme il lui plaît, je suppose. Il n’est pas sous mandat d’arrêt, que je sache (S) ? (Bernanos 1969 [1935] : 128) ‘Moreover, I assume that Mr. Priest of Mégère has the right to walk up and down as much as he likes. He is not issued an arrest warrant, as far as I know (S) [sache].’

In example (8), Cohen (1965) discusses the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in clauses following après que ‘after’. In Contemporary French, the Subjunctive is used as much as the Indicative so that the choice of mood seems to be illogical. In this example, with the use of the Subjunctive, Cohen avoids explaining or committing to this fact. (8) Je ne sache (S) pas qu’on ait jusqu’à présent recherché quel est le premier grammairien qui ait proscrit le subjonctif et le premier qui ait fondé la prescription de l’indicatif sur le caractère forcément acquis de ce qui a eu lieu effectivement. (Cohen 1965 : 218) ‘I do not know (S) [sache] that, as of yet, anyone has searched for the first grammarian who proscribed the subjunctive and who is the first who prescribed the indicative for the necessarily acquired feature of what has really happened.’

According to Hewson (1997: 143–144), the form sache of example (8) is the “alternative indicative” of savoir, just as je puis ‘I may’ is the “alternative indicative” of je peux ‘I can, I may’. However, unlike je puis, the verb savoir appears not only in the first person singular, but also in the third person singular with on (= je ‘I’), in the first person plural and, rarely, in the second person singular (cf. Cohen 1965: 156–157; Grevisse 2001: 1266–1267). In addition, the form je sache is generally used with negation in order to avoid asserting a fact, which fits in with the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive. 2. Volition. The Subjunctive in such sentences implies a desired occurrence that is not taking place. Therefore, it is impossible to be confident of its realization. By volition, I mean the following expressions:

19. However, the investigator was well informed, and the Subjunctive was used to show that the alarm was raised for nothing.

91

92


a. Wish or will, introduced by verbs or verb phrases such as avoir envie ‘to wish’, commander ‘to order, to command’, désirer ‘to wish’, exiger ‘to insist, to require’, ordonner ‘to command, to demand’, proposer ‘to propose, to suggest’, souhaiter ‘to wish’, vouloir ‘to want’. b. Permission or prohibition, introduced by verbs such as accepter ‘to accept; to agree’, consentir ‘to agree, to consent’, défendre, interdire ‘to forbid’, permettre ‘to allow, to let’. c. Necessity, introduced by the verb falloir ‘to need to; to have to’ in the impersonal expression il faut. The set of examples (9)–(10) illustrates the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative in the subordinate clause, introduced by the verb suggérer ‘to suggest’. The Subjunctive is used with suggérer to express a desired occurrence, whereas the Indicative expresses an asserted occurrence. It might be claimed that the alternation of mood in these examples is motivated by the different meanings of suggérer. As previously stated, I reject the explanation, based on different meanings of the same form. I seek a unified explanation for the appearance of both moods, based on the opposition of their invariant meanings. My assumption is that the Indicative is used to express occurrences, whose outcome is considered certain because it is based on facts or the encoder’s strong belief. The Subjunctive is used to express occurrences, whose outcome is considered uncertain because an alternative outcome is also feasible. I postulate that the verb suggérer invariably means To Submit/Propose an Idea. This meaning allows the encoder to imply either an alternative, as in example (9), or an occurrence, as in example (10). Both examples (9) and (10), taken from the novel L’île ‘The Island’ by Merle (1962), deal with a conflict between mutinous British sailors and Tahitians on a desert island. In example (9), Lieutenant Purcell suggests that the first officer Mason should participate in the meeting that the sailors have organized to debate points at issue. Since Mason has so far refused to participate, Purcell is not confident of Mason’s decision and considers his possible refusal. Moreover, Mason himself shows reluctance to participate in the assembly. This alternative is emphasized by the multiple use of the Subjunctive in example (9). (9) – Je suggère deux choses, Capitaine. La première, c’est que vous assistiez (S) vous-mêmes aux assemblées et que vous preniez (S) part aux votes. La seconde est que vous aidiez (S), précisément par votre vote, à y introduire les Tahitiens […] – Monsieur Purcell, dit-il enfin, je n’en crois pas mes oreilles. Vous suggérez que moi, Richard Hesley Mason, commandant le Blossom, j’aille (S) siéger au milieu de ce ramassis de mutins, discuter avec eux, et voter ! (Merle 1962 : 195–196)


‘“I suggest two things, Captain. The first one is your personal presence (S) [assistiez] at the assemblies and your taking (S) [preniez] part in polls. The second is your help (S) [aidiez] to introduce the Tahitians there by your own vote […]” “Mister Purcell, he says finally, I cannot believe my ears. You suggest that I, Richard Hesley Mason, the captain of The Blossom, go (S) [aille] sit in a session among this pack of mutineers, to discuss with them, and to vote!”’

Example (10) appears when the assembly discusses the guerilla war that broke out between the sailors and the Tahitians. Lieutenant Purcell replies to the suggestion, made by the sailors’ leader Mac Leod, that the Tahitians have condemned all of them to death. Unlike example (9), Purcell does not propose anything; he just presents Mac Leod’s words as a fact, expressed by the Indicative. (10) – Vous me permettrez de répondre à Mac Leod, s’écria Purcell avec une exaspération contenue. Il vient de suggérer que les Tahitiens nous ont (I) tous condamnés à mort. (Merle 1962 : 401) ‘“Let me reply to Mac Leod, exclaimed Purcell with a restrained exasperation. He has just suggested that the Tahitians condemned (I) [ont condamnés] all of us to death.”’

The Subjunctive also appears in simple sentences that indicate the encoder’s will or wish for the realization of an occurrence, as in the set of examples (11)–(13). Example (11), taken from La symphonie pastorale ‘The Pastoral Symphony’ by Gide (1963) [1925], shows the use of the Subjunctive in a prayer that inherently expresses a strong wish for something that has not yet happened. In this example, the pastor praises God for sending him a blind young girl whom he will educate (and with whom he will eventually fall in love). (11) J’ai projeté d’écrire ici tout ce qui concerne la formation et le développement de cette âme pieuse, qu’il me semble que je n’ai fait sortir de la nuit que pour l’adoration et l’amour. Béni soit (S) le Seigneur pour m’avoir confié cette tâche. (Gide 1963 [1925] : 8) ‘I proposed to write here the whole history of her formation and development, for I seem to have called up out of the night her sweet and pious soul for no other end but adoration and love. Blessed be (S) [soit] the Lord for having entrusted me with this task!’ (Gide 1949: 109)

One might argue that this use of the Subjunctive is idiomatic (cf. Wagner & Pinchon 1962: 320) and blessing God does not imply doubts about God’s holiness. Consider Soutet (2000) on this matter:

93


Sémantiquement, l’orientation assertive de ces tournures optatives est très variable. Si, parfois, il s’agit d’authentiques souhaits, bien souvent le caractère formulaire de la prière lui confère une force de certitude très grande. C’est très net dans l’exemple (21) [Béni soit le nom du Très-Haut] qui n’est qu’une manière indirecte d’asserter que le nom du Très-Haut est béni. (Soutet 2000 : 41) ‘Semantically, the assertive orientation of these optative expressions is very variable. If, sometimes, it concerns true wishes, the formulary character of a prayer very often gives to it a force of a very great certainty. It is very clear in example (21) [Blessed be the holy name of the Most High] which is just an indirect way to assert that the name of the Most High is blessed.’

I claim that this use of the Subjunctive fits in with the postulated invariant meaning Alternative to Occurrence. One should remember that originally prayers starting with Béni soit ‘Blessed be…’ were used in Catholic liturgy to repair (as an alternative to) committed blasphemes. The same holds for the Subjunctive, used in interjectional exclamations with the verb vivre ‘to live’, as in example (12), taken from the novel Chéri by Colette (1970 [1960]). The novel concerns a love affair between a 49-year-old former courtesan Léa and a 25-year-old young man Chéri. In this example, Chéri drinks a toast to Marie-Laure who took him for Léa’s procurer. (12) Chéri leva son verre empli d’un vin de Château-Chalon, coloré comme de l’eau-de-vie : « Vive (S) Marie-Laure ! Quel compliment, hein ! Et qu’on m’en dise autant quand j’aurai ton âge, je n’en demande pas plus ! » (Colette 1970 [1960] : 91) ‘Chéri lifted his glass filled with Château-Chalon which was the color of brandy. “Then here’s (S) [Vive] to Marie-Laure. Quite a compliment, she paid me, eh? And if they can still say it about me when I’m your age, I won’t ask anything better.”’ (Colette 1951: 39)

I contend that the idiomatic use of the Subjunctive in example (12) is also motivated by its invariant meaning Alternative to Occurrence despite l’orientation assertive, attributed to this use by Soutet (2000: 41). One should remember that this exclamation derives from the phrase Le Roi est mort, Vive le Roi! ‘The King is dead, Long live the King!’. This proclamation was traditionally declared on the coronation of a new monarch following (as an alternative to) the death of the monarch’s father. The encoder’s will and, as a result, the uncertainty of an occurrence are expressed as well by the Subjunctive in simple sentences, introduced by que, as in example (13). Such sentences mostly convey orders for the third person subject that cannot be conveyed by the imperative, used to address the decoder directly.


Example (13), taken from the short story L’Huissier ‘The Bailiff ’ by Aymé (1943), concerns the judgment of a deceased bailiff. Saint Peter decides to send him to hell and to torture him with the tears of a widow and an orphan whose property this officer confiscated. Though Saint Peter’s sentence is an order, it is not yet executed, i.e. the execution remains uncertain, which is emphasized by the Subjunctive. (13) – En Enfer ! Qu’on me l’accommode (S) d’un bon feu et qu’on m’entretienne (S) ses brûlures pour l’éternité en les arrosant deux fois par jour avec les larmes de la veuve et de l’orphelin ! (Aymé 1943 : 232) ‘In Hell! I want a good fire to be (S) prepared [accommode] for him and his burns to be (S) kept [entretienne] forever by sprinkling them with the tears of the widow and the orphan twice a day!’

It might be argued that it is incorrect to deal with the uncertainty of an occurrence in commands. They indicate the encoder’s expectation that his/her order will be performed. The issuance of a command does not mean, however, its immediate execution, which accounts for the uncertainty of an occurrence. Thus, for example, in the short story L’Huissier, Saint Peter’s sentence is not executed. The deceased bailiff is given another chance to perform kind deeds and is sent back to the world. At the same time, the Indicative can appear with the verbs that traditionally govern the Subjunctive. The Indicative expresses the encoder’s intention to emphasize the probability of a desired occurrence or a strong hope, as in example (14). This example has been taken from the French newspaper Libération (30– 31.10.99). It deals with a guide who has been accused of the manslaughter of a group of pupils who were killed in an avalanche in the Alps. The Indicative, which the guide uses in the last speech, expresses his strong hope that he will be forgiven. (14) En s’adressant une dernière fois au tribunal, le guide a déclaré : « A toutes les familles touchées…, je souhaite que le temps leur permettra (I) d’entendre ce que je vais leur dire : je leur demande pardon. » (Libération, 30–31.10.99, p. 18) ‘Speaking to the court for the last time, the guide declared “I wish all the affected families… that time will (I) enable [permettra] them to hear what I’m going to say to them: I beg their pardon.”’

Sentence-oriented grammarians provide the following explanations for the use of the Indicative after the verbs of volition:

95


1. The syntactic explanation: the Indicative is claimed to be part of a certain syntactic structure of a sentence: e.g., the Indicative of the niveau homonexe (cf. Boysen 1971: 28–30, 133). However, this is not the only function that the Indicative performs in the sentence. Following Boysen, one may also distinguish the Indicative of the niveau homo-hétéronexe and the Indicative of the niveau hétéronexe. Syntactic rules do not allow us to arrive at a one form-one meaning relationship. Moreover, they “do not always explain why speakers and writers choose one form or construction over the other in spoken and written discourse” (Tobin 1995: 66). 2. The polysemous explanation: the verb souhaiter ‘to wish’ is claimed to have different meanings. Souhaiter with the meaning of vouloir ‘to want’ governs the Subjunctive, whereas souhaiter with the meaning of espérer ‘to hope’ governs the Indicative (cf. Cohen 1965: 81–82). However, this explanation contradicts the sign-oriented principle of invariance that every use of a form is derived from its invariant meaning. According to this principle, sign-oriented theories deal with the invariant meaning of a sign that contributes to specific discourse messages rather than with polysemous meanings of a form. 3. The explanation by a lexical environment within a sentence: the use of the Indicative results from the use of adverbs of time or adverbial clauses of time that emphasize a future occurrence (cf. Nordahl 1969: 35–36). However, this explanation is not satisfactory either. One can see that the Indicative is used in example (14) without any lexical environment that would attribute the occurrence to the future. The data presented by Nordahl (1969: 74) show the predominance of the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause after expressions of volition in the main clause. Its rate is 98.6% (2136 examples with the Subjunctive versus 31 with the Indicative). This descriptive fact leads sentence-oriented grammar to consider the use of the Indicative in such subordinate clauses contrary to the norm, a mistake (cf. Blücher 1979: 19). I account for the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in any context as being motivated by their invariant meanings. I reject the notion of the norm in favor of a communicated effect, produced by their use, even if this is a “forced marriage” of so-called incompatible meanings. The Subjunctive in examples (2) and (6) emphasizes an alternative that the encoder examines in a seemingly obvious situation. The Indicative in examples (3), (5) and (14) emphasizes the stronger encoder’s hope concerning an occurrence in an uncertain or ambiguous situation.


3. Anticipated alternative. The Subjunctive is also used to emphasize an alternative to an anticipated occurrence that has not yet taken place and, therefore, is uncertain. The anticipated uncertainty of an occurrence is manifested by expressions of anticipation in time, purpose and consequence, condition or supposition and fear. a. Anticipation in time The anticipation of an alternative in time results from the correlation between two occurrences, one of which happens before another which may not happen. This alternative is expressed by the Subjunctive following the conjunctions avant que ‘before’, jusqu’à ce que ‘until’, the expression en attendant que ‘until’, the verb attendre que ‘to wait for’ that emphasize the anticipation, as in example (15), taken from the short story Bonsoir, chérie by Maurois (1946). In this example, Sabine evokes the time when she and Antoine were good friends before he left her to marry Françoise. The Subjunctive in example (15) emphasizes the alternative that Antoine might not meet Françoise. (15) « Je suis contente de vous revoir seul, Antoine… J’aime tendrement votre femme mais tout de même, nous avons été de grands amis, vous et moi, avant que vous ne la connaissiez (S)… Vous en souvenez-vous encore ? » (Maurois 1946 : 114) ‘“I am so glad to see you alone, Antoine. I’m very fond of your wife, but after all we were such close friends before you knew (S) [connaissiez] her. Do you remember?”’ (Maurois 1949: 327)

The use of the Indicative with the expressions of anticipation in time appears to be illogical because its invariant meaning designates specified occurrences. However, instances of the “forced marriage” of these seemingly incompatible meanings can be found, as in example (16). Here, the appearance of the Indicative after the conjunction avant que ‘before’ is still motivated by its invariant meaning. The Indicative produces a particular communicative effect, focusing the decoder’s attention on a well-known, determined fact rather than on the uncertainty of the moment of an occurrence. Example (16) has been taken from the fable Le procès ‘The Trial’ by Anouilh (1962) that deals with a trial against a cat who rats have charged with all their sufferings. In this example, a giraffe, being a member of the jury, says impatiently that there is no point in recounting massacres perpetrated even before the invention of electric light. The Indicative in the giraffe’s speech draws the decoder’s

97


attention to the fact that electricity was invented a long time ago20 rather than on the uncertainty of the moment of its invention. (16)

« Tout cela c’était bien avant que le progrès Et les lumières ne parurent (I) ! » Dit la girafe, de toute sa hauteur. (Anouilh 1962 : 34) ‘“All that was long before progress And electricity appeared (I) [parurent]!” Said the giraffe from his eye level.’

b. Purpose and consequence Purpose, introduced by the conjunctions afin que, pour que ‘in order that’, and consequence, introduced by the conjunctions de (telle) façon/manière/sorte que; si/tant/tel … que ‘so … that’, express an intended outcome that might not be achieved. This anticipation of an alternative is expressed by the Subjunctive. The Indicative is used with the expressions of consequence to focus the decoder’s attention on an achieved outcome. Examples (17)–(18) represent two opposite views on an occurrence following the conjunction de manière/sorte que ‘so … that’. Both examples have been taken from La symphonie pastorale by Gide (1963) [1925]. When the focus is on an intended occurrence with an uncertain outcome, as in example (17), the Subjunctive is used. When the focus is on an achieved occurrence, as in example (18), the Indicative is used. (17) Quelques instants après, […] j’ouvris la porte de l’église de manière qu’elle pût (S) l’entendre et croire que je ne faisais que d’entrer. (Gide 1963 [1925] : 74) ‘A few moments later I […] opened the church door so that she might (S) [pût] hear me and think I had only just arrived.’ (Gide 1949: 138) (18) […] mais je lui expliquai qu’à son infirmité s’ajoutait la surdité de la vieille qui seule jusqu’alors avait pris soin d’elle, et qui ne lui parlait jamais, de sorte que la pauvre enfant était (I) demeurée dans un état d’abandon total. (Gide 1963 [1925] : 32)

20. The fact that electricity was invented a long time ago is inferred as well from the Passé Simple (the Past Simple or the Past Historic) that appears in the speech of the giraffe. The Passé Simple is most suitable for past events that are detached from the encoder’s present. Therefore, according to Reid (1983 [1979]: 302), “the gulf that the PS [Passé Simple] implies between the past and the present makes it particularly appropriate for reference to past events in writing”. The Passé Simple hardly appears in speech. However, when it is used there, “it suggests temporal and thematic remoteness from the shared moment of speaking; it implicitly denies the relevance of the event to the ongoing conversation” (ibid: 303).


‘[…] but I explained that in addition to this she had had to suffer from the deafness of the old woman who was her sole guardian and who never spoke to her, so that the poor child had (I) been [était] utterly neglected.’ (Gide 1949: 120)

c. Condition or supposition The conjunctions à (la) condition que ‘on condition that’, à moins que ‘unless’, à supposer que, en admettant que ‘supposing that’, pour peu que ‘if ’, pourvu que ‘provided that’, si tant est que ‘that is if ’ introduce conditions upon which the realization of an occurrence depends. This dependence implies the alternative that an occurrence might not be realized, which involves the use of the Subjunctive, as in example (19). This example has been taken from a short story Après dix ans ‘After Ten Years’ by Maurois (1946). In this story, Isabelle has invited a woman whom her husband had loved ten years ago. However, she is uncertain whether the dinner will take place because her husband does not want to invite this woman. The Subjunctive in example (19) emphasizes Isabelle’s uncertainty. (19) – Vous savez, Isabelle, que je suis en ce moment très fatigué et que je redoute plus que tout les conversations inutiles; ne me les imposez pas. – Je vous épargnerai toutes les autres, pourvu que vous m’accordiez (S) celleci… (Maurois 1946 : 20) ‘“You know, Isabelle, I’m very tired, and I detest this useless conversation. Don’t bother me with it.” “I won’t annoy you anymore; only grant (S) [accordiez] me this one thing…”’ (Maurois 1949: 317)

It is noteworthy that mathematicians use the Subjunctive to formulate their hypotheses, as in Soit (S) un triangle ABC ‘Let (S) [Soit] ABC be a triangle’. The same holds for the use of the Subjunctive by Martinet (1979) in example (20). In this example, Martinet hypothesizes (qu’il) chante ‘(that he) should sing’ being a syntagm of the verb in the Subjunctive. Just as ABC might not be a triangle, the syntagm (qu’il) chante might not be in the Subjunctive. This alternative is expressed by the Subjunctive in example (20). (20) “Soit le syntagme subjonctif (qu’il) chante […]” (Martinet 1979 : 101) ‘Let (qu’il) chante ‘(that he) should sing’ be (S) [Soit] the Subjunctive syntagm.’

One could argue that the Indicative also expresses the uncertainty of an occurrence in conditional sentences. It is my opinion that the Subjunctive emphasizes a specific alternative to an occurrence, whereas the Indicative emphasizes the possibility of an occurrence in the broadest sense of the term. The difference between

99


the Indicative and the Subjunctive can be better understood from their use within the same sentence. It is known that if a sentence conveys several conditions, the first of them is introduced by si ‘if ’ and expressed by the Indicative. The others are usually introduced by que ‘if ’ and expressed by the Subjunctive (cf. Cohen 1965: 56–57; Grevisse 2001: 1673–1674). My claim is that the introduction of several conditions is based on the degree of their possibility. The most feasible condition appears first, introduced by si, and less feasible conditions appear after, introduced by que. According to Brunot (1965: 709), in such sentences, the replacement of si + the Indicative by que + the Subjunctive is semantically unjustified. In his signoriented study, Guillaume (1970: 49–50) claims that this replacement results from the change of vision of the operative time. After si, the hypothesis is the purpose of a statement, whereas after que it becomes the prism through which the development of the time image is viewed. […] c’est-à-dire au fond la même idée, mais soumise à un mouvement de pensée différent, l’hypothèse étant, dans le premier cas, un élément de vision (une chose regardée) et dans le second cas un élément de visée (une chose regardante). (Guillaume 1970 : 50) ‘[…] i.e., in fact, the same idea, but subjected to a different movement of thought, the hypothesis being, in the first case, an element of vision (a viewed thing) and in the second case an element of intention (a viewing thing).’

Example (21), taken from the play Rhinocéros by Ionesco (1959), illustrates the difference between the Indicative and the Subjunctive used within the same sentence in conditional clauses. In this example, both moods are used to suppose what one could have done if the invasion of rhinoceroses, which happened in the city, had happened in another country. Si introduces the most feasible hypothesis (“If only it had happened”), perceived as a possibility in the broad sense, and, therefore, expressed by the Indicative. Que introduces another, less feasible hypothesis (“and we’d just read about it”) that depends on whether or not the first hypothesis, introduced by si, will be confirmed. The Subjunctive expresses this alternative in example (21). (21) Dudard : Ne jugez pas les autres, si vous ne voulez pas être jugé. Et puis si on se faisait des soucis pour tout ce qui se passe, on ne pourrait plus vivre. Bérenger : Si cela s’était (I) passé ailleurs, dans un autre pays et qu’on eût (S) appris cela par les journaux, on pourrait discuter paisiblement de la chose, étudier la question sur toutes ses faces, en tirer objectivement des conclusions. (Ionesco 1959 : 184) ‘Dudard: Judge not lest ye be judged. If you start worrying about everything that happens you’d never be able to go on living.

Chapter 5. Occurrence System and the encoder’s commitment 101

Berenger: If only it had (I) happened [s’était passé] somewhere else, in some other country, and we’d (S) just read [eût appris] about it in the papers, one could discuss it quietly, examine the question from all points of view and come to an objective conclusions.’ (Ionesco 1960: 78)

The meaning of certain verbs such as the verb admettre ‘to admit, to assume’ can express supposition and, as a result, the uncertainty of an occurrence. Just as with the verb suggérer ‘to suggest’, it might be claimed (cf. Grevisse 2001: 1618–1619, Soutet 2000: 62) that the alternation of mood following admettre is motivated by its different meanings. As previously pointed out, I advocate the principle of invariance and reject the explanation by different meanings. I explain the choice of one mood over the other by the opposition of their invariant meanings. I postulate the invariant meaning of admettre as To Get X Accepted or Recognized. My claim is that this meaning allows the encoder either to imply an alternative or to indicate an occurrence. The set of examples (22)–(23) illustrate this point. Examples (22)–(23) have been taken from the French translation of the Czech novel L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ by Kundera (1984).21 Example (22) presents the narrator’s supposition as to whether the Czech state prosecutor was ignorant when he called for the executions of innocents. The narrator is uncertain of the official’s sincerity, implying that the state prosecutor should have been aware of these executions. This alternative is expressed by the Subjunctive in example (22). (22) Admettons que le procureur tchèque qui réclamait au début des années cinquante la peine de mort pour un innocent ait (S) été trompé par la police secrète russe et par le gouvernement de son pays. (Kundera 1984 : 255) ‘Let us concede that a Czech public prosecutor in the early fifties who called for the death of an innocent man was (S) deceived [ait été trompé] by the Russian secret police and the government of his own country.’ (Kundera 1985: 177)

In example (23), the narrator speculates about why Tomas resigned so quickly from the clinic. The narrator understands the reasons of Tomas’s resignation and presents them as facts in the Indicative. 21. I may be reproached for the use of translations in my analysis because the translation is “the creation of a new text using a different linguistic system” (Tobin 1993b: 316). Nevertheless, a translated text conveys the major ideas of an original text, but by specific means of its own language. In other words, different linguistic systems are exploited to achieve the same extralinguistic message in an original text and in its translated version. Therefore, the translation can be used in analyses to show which linguistic systems a target language exploits to convey messages of a source language.


(23) On a évidemment le droit de redouter même des dangers guère probables. Admettons-le. Et admettons aussi qu’il [Tomas] était (I) en colère contre lui-même, contre sa propre maladresse et qu’il voulait (I) éviter d’avoir avec la police de nouveaux contacts qui n’auraient fait qu’exacerber son sentiment d’impuissance. Et admettons encore qu’en réalité il avait (I) déjà perdu son métier, car son travail mécanique au dispensaire où il prescrivait des cachets d’aspirine n’avait rien de commun avec l’idée qu’il se faisait de la médecine. (Kundera 1984 : 279) ‘Granted, a man has a right to fear dangers that are less than likely to occur. Granted, he was (I) [était] annoyed with himself and at his clumsiness, and desired (I) [voulait] to avoid further contact with the police and the concomitant feeling of helplessness. And granted, he had (I) lost [avait perdu] his profession anyway, because the mechanical aspirin-medicine he practiced at the clinic had nothing in common with his concept of medicine.’ (Kundera 1985: 194)

d. Fear Fear, introduced by the verbs or verb phrases avoir peur, craindre ‘to fear, to be afraid’, redouter ‘to dread’ and the conjunctions de crainte/peur que ‘for fear that’, represents anxiety about the unknown and uncertain danger or pain. The Subjunctive following expressions of fear, as in example (24), implies an alternative to an unwanted occurrence. This example has been taken from the short story Traversée de Paris ‘Crossing Paris’ by Aymé (1947). The story deals with two Parisians who run the risk of crossing the city occupied by the Nazis. They are crossing Paris at night, anxious about the moon that might appear in the sky. The Subjunctive appears in example (24) to imply this alternative. (24) Vers l’Hôtel de Ville apparaissaient quelques étoiles dans un coin de ciel encore étroit et bordé d’argent. Il était à craindre que dans quelques instants la lune ne se découvrît (S), ce qui rendrait la tâche plus délicate. (Aymé 1947 : 48) ‘While they were approaching to the City Hall, some stars appeared in the sky, still narrow and edged with silver. They feared that in a few moments the moon might (S) appear [se découvrît]. This would make their mission more difficult.’

At the same time, when the encoder’s intention is to emphasize the inevitability of an unwanted occurrence one finds the Indicative, following expressions of fear. Example (25), taken from the novel Les Olympiques ‘The Olympians’ by Montherlant (1954), illustrates this point. This example deals with the atmosphere in a boxing competition that is taking place in post-war Paris. The narrator uses the


Indicative to express the naïveté of Mrs. Peyrony, an old woman who thinks that the boxers will indeed fall over the ropes of the ring. (25) Le public est fait de copains, de grandes sœurs, de poupons, d’amantes, sans oublier la mère, la classique Mme Peyrony qui tout à l’heure, quand le combat bousculera les garçons contre les cordes, de son côté – et elle est assise au second rang, – avancera l’épaule, étendra le bras (bravo pour la garde!), détournera la tête (moins bien), et criera avec épouvante: « J’ai peur qu’ils vont (I) tomber! » (Montherlant 1954 : 147) ‘The public includes buddies, big sisters, little babies, mistresses, without forgetting the mother, the classic Mrs. Peyrony. When the fighting jostles the boys to the ropes on her side – and she is sitting in the second row – she will move the shoulder forward, stretch out the arm (cheer for the guard!), turn her head away (worse), and shout with dread: “I’m afraid they are (I) going [vont] to fall!”’

It might be argued that the Indicative is used in this example because the verb in the Indicative represents a periphrasis (the Present of the verb aller ‘to go’ + infinitive). Such periphrases are almost never used in the Subjunctive (cf. Nordahl 1969: 93, 97). I can raise two objections against this argument: 1. Example (4) from the Preface has shown that the simple (non-periphrastic) forms of verbs can be used in the Indicative following the expressions of fear. (4) […] mais il est à craindre que ce sera (I) tout. (Le Monde 10.5.1966, p. 20, col. 3 cit. in Boysen 1971 : 28) ‘But one should be afraid that it may (I) be [sera] all over.’

2. The narrator uses the periphrasis in this specific context in order to show that the occurrence is inevitable, which correlates with the invariant meaning of the Indicative. It is also not by chance that the verb of this periphrasis is used in the present. This tense allows the encoder to represent an occurrence “as if it were already a reality, i.e., relevant and most salient to the speaker’s pointof-view at the ‘here and now’ point of speaking” (Tobin 1989: 67). 4. Indefinite existence. The opposition of the meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive contributes to characterize entities used as antecedents of relative clauses. The encoder employs the Indicative to commit to the existence of an antecedent and, therefore, to the occurrence which characterizes that antecedent. The Subjunctive is employed to avoid the encoder’s committing to the existence of an antecedent as well as to the occurrence that characterizes it. The Subjunctive,


implying an alternative, shows that the existence of an antecedent is uncertain. The uncertainty is manifested by the following: a. Indefinite or interrogative expressions such as où que ‘wherever’, quel(le)(s) que ‘whichever’, qui que ‘whoever’, quoi que ‘whatever’, si … que ‘however’. b. So-called indefinite articles (un, une ‘a, an’, des ‘some’) and indefinite pronouns (quelque chose ‘something’, quelqu’un ‘somebody’). a. Indefinite or interrogative expressions These expressions imply uncertainty par excellence. They refer to an unlimited number of entities, features or circumstances that can be used as the antecedents of an occurrence. In other words, since an occurrence can be attributed to any entity, feature or circumstance, this automatically implies an alternative, expressed by the Subjunctive. Example (26), taken from the novel L’Arrache-Cœur ‘Heart snatcher’ by Vian (1962), illustrates this point. In this example, the psychiatrist Jacquemort is indignant that a mother is getting a blacksmith to make iron shoes for her children and that her husband does not intervene. The multiple use of the Subjunctive implies a strong alternative to the way that she is going to educate the children. (26) – Votre femme m’envoie chercher le maréchal-ferrant, dit Jacquemort. Vous ne craignez pas qu’elle les élève un peu brutalement. – Je ne peux rien dire, dit Angel. Elle a souffert et pas moi. Ça lui donne des droits. – Je conteste, dit Jacquemort, qu’une chose aussi inutile que la souffrance puisse donner des droits quels qu’ils soient (S), à qui que ce soit (S), sur quoi que ce soit (S). (Vian 1962 : 91) ‘“Your wife is sending me for the smith, says Jacquemort. Aren’t you afraid that she brings them up a little brutally?” “I can say nothing, says Angel. She has suffered, not me. She has a right.” “I object, says Jacquemort, that a useless thing such as suffering could give anyone whoever it may (S) be [soit] rights whichever they may (S) be [soient] to whatever it may (S) be [soit].”’

The same holds for the idiomatic expressions vaille que vaille ‘at any cost, somehow or other’ and coûte que coûte ‘at all costs’. In both of them, the second verb in the Subjunctive implies an alternative, referring to any cost. The form vaille, as illustrated by example (27), taken from the novel Un crime de Bernanos (1969) [1935], indicates any cost, even if it is not worth much. The form coûte, as illustrated by example (28), taken from the detective story Le Revolver de Maigret by Simenon (1952), indicates any cost, even it is worth a lot.


(27) Rien n’était perdu cependant. Du moins aurais-je pu retourner avec lui jusqu’à la ville, vaille que vaille (S). (Bernanos 1969 [1935] : 19) ‘However, nothing was lost. At least I could have gone back with him up to the city somehow or other (S) [vaille].’ (28) Avouez que ces messieurs savent parfaitement qu’il s’agit d’un crime politique et qui vous ont chargé d’étouffer la vérité coûte que coûte (S). (Simenon 1952 : 74) ‘Confess that these men know perfectly well that this is a political crime and they have asked you to hush up the truth at all costs (S) [coûte].’

The choice of mood after the expressions tout/pour … que ‘although, no matter how’ has been disputed. They are not always followed by the Subjunctive, as in tout/pour forts qu’ils soient/sont ‘however strong they might be/are’. Morel (1996) distinguishes these expressions from other expressions such as si/aussi/quelque … que ‘although, no matter how’ that require the Subjunctive, as in si/aussi/quelque forts qu’ils soient ‘however strong they might be’. According to Morel, the expressions si/aussi/quelque … que are used to indicate the change in the intension degree of an attribute, which accounts for their preference for the Subjunctive. Consider Morel (1996) on this matter: Si l’ensemble de ces cinq marqueurs correspond bien à une opération de focalisation, on est amené d’emblée à distinguer deux groupes, en fonction des traits sémantiques des constituants focalisés (variabilité ou non dans le degré d’intensité de la qualité) et selon que le subjonctif apparaît comme obligatoire ou non. On regroupera donc dans un premier temps : a) si, aussi et quelque d’une part (subjonctif obligatoire), et b) pour et tout d’autre part (indicatif très fréquent). (Morel 1996 : 116) ‘If all these five markers correspond to an operation of focusing, we are immediately led to differentiate two groups, according to the semantic features of the focused components (variability or non-variability of the degree of the intensity of quality) and depending on whether the subjunctive is required or not. We will regroup, therefore, at first: a) si, aussi and quelque, on one hand (obligatory subjunctive), and b) pour and tout, on the other hand (very frequent indicative).’

Morel’s classification of the expressions as well as her explanation is based on the functions that these expressions perform in the sentence and, therefore, are arguable. Without postulating the meanings of si and aussi, I reservedly agree that the expressions si/aussi … que are used to indicate a variable, i.e. uncertain degree of an attributed feature. The expression quelque … que also indicates an uncertain degree by virtue of the indefiniteness of quelque ‘some’. In contrast, the expressions tout/pour … que are used only to attribute a feature to an entity, without dealing with its variation. I even claim that the expressions tout/pour … que imply


that an entity possesses or might possess a feature in its entirety (tout means ‘all, the whole’). The idea of possessing a feature can either emphasize a difference (an alternative) between entities or rule out any such difference. The former introduces the Subjunctive, whereas the latter introduces the Indicative. Examples (29)–(30) illustrate this use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive with the expression tout … que.22 Both examples have been taken from the novel L’île ‘The Island’ by Merle (1962). In example (29), Mason refuses to participate in the assembly because the “blacks” (the Tahitians) sit there as equals with the British sailors. For Mason, the sailors, being first of all British citizens, differ from the “savage” Tahitians. This difference is implied with the Subjunctive in example (29). (29) Vous avez bien dit : Voter !… Et comme si cela ne suffisait pas, vous voulez qu’à côté de ces hommes qui, tout bandits qu’ils soient (S), sont quand même des Britanniques, vous voulez que des Noirs, je dis bien : des Noirs, soient admis à siéger. (Merle 1962 : 196) ‘You have really said “To vote!” and as if it was not enough, you want that beside these men who are nevertheless British citizens, even though they might (S) be [soient] bandits, you want the blacks, I do say “the blacks”, to be allowed to sit in session.’

In example (30), the sailors discuss how to distribute the Tahitian women among them. For the sailors, the fact that Mason is an officer does not mean he may enjoy any privilege or disobey adopted decisions. The absence of a difference for Mason is what the Indicative implies in this example. (30) Si Mason préfère rester en cale sèche au lieu d’tirer un bord jusqu’ici, c’est son affaire. Mais la loi, c’est la loi, même pour Mason, tout officier qu’il est (I) ! (Merle 1962 : 206) ‘If Mason prefers staying in the dry dock instead of drawing his board here, that is his business. But the law is the law, even for Mason, although he is (I) [est] an officer!’

b. Indefinite articles and pronouns This use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive correlates with the use of definite and indefinite articles, preceding antecedents in the main clause, as in the following minimal pair:

22. In my data, I have found no example with the expression pour … que, followed by the Indicative. However, such examples appear in Harmer (1954: 26).


(31) Avez-vous trouvé le traitement qui convient (I) au malade ? ‘Have you found the treatment that fits (I) [convient] the patient?’ (32) Avez-vous trouvé un traitement qui convienne (S) au malade ? ‘Have you found any treatment that would (S) fit [convienne] the patient?’

I claim that in French, the articles compose the System of Differentiation. Reid (1974) defines the semantic substance of this system as follows: […] the extent to which the referent of the associated lexical item has been differentiated from other potential referents by information in the surrounding context (linguistic or extralinguistic). (Reid 1974: 49)

A sign-oriented contrastive analysis of the System of Differentiation has been made for English (Diver 1986), Spanish (Klein 1976) and Hebrew (Tobin 1997b). I follow the three analyses to postulate the French System of Differentiation, represented schematically by Figure 4.23 Semantic substance

Signal

Meaning

Differentiation (+ singular)

le, la, l’ du, de la, de l’ les des

complete not complete complete not complete

Differentiation (+ plural)

Figure 4. The System of Differentiation for nouns in French

In the singular, the System of Differentiation is interlocked with the System of Gender with the following meanings: le, du (masculine), la, de la (feminine) and l’, de l’ (before a vowel or mute h for both genders). Just as in Spanish, the so-called indefinite articles un (masculine) and une (feminine) in singular underlie the semantic domain of Number and Gender. They are numerals with the following meanings: One, Masculine or Feminine, respectively, and are not part of the System of Differentiation. The definite articles show that an entity has been completely differentiated either as “an individual instance of something”, or as “a member of a class or set”, or as a referent “sufficiently identified in context” (Tobin 1997b: 1842–1843). In other words, they imply the encoder’s commitment to the complete differentia23. For the sake of simplicity, I will not go into a detailed discussion of this system here. I have postulated these signals with their invariant meanings to show that the signs of the System of Differentiation contribute to communicate specific messages together with the signs of the Occurrence System. For more details about the System of Differentiation, see Tobin (1997b).


tion of an entity, perceived as part and parcel of a class of specific entities. The indefinite articles imply that the encoder avoids committing to the complete differentiation of an entity, perceived as an unspecified member that differs from the whole set. The numerals un and une occur “with referents that are being identified or differentiated from others like members of a class or set but have not been sufficiently identified or differentiated in context” (Tobin 1997b: 1843–1844). It is not surprising that sentence-oriented grammar (cf. Chevalier et al. 1973: 218, Grevisse 1961: 78, 2001: 868–869) has always considered numerals to be indefinite articles for masculine and feminine singular. The meanings of the indefinite articles and the numerals un, une fit with the meaning of the Subjunctive, which implies the alternative that an appropriate antecedent might not be found, as in example (33). The Indicative can also be used after indefinite antecedents to assume the encoder’s commitment to the outcome of an occurrence, i.e. to affirm that an appropriate antecedent exists, as in example (34). Example (33), taken from Le Petit Prince by Saint-Exupery (1946), presents the existence of an antecedent as being uncertain. In this example, the little prince wants the narrator to draw a sheep that would live a long time. The Subjunctive emphasizes the uncertainty of the little prince as to whether the narrator will be able to draw such a sheep. (33) Celui-là est trop vieux. Je veux un mouton qui vive (S) longtemps. (SaintExupéry 1946 : 14) ‘This one is too old. I want a sheep that will (S) live [vive] a long time.’ (Saint-Exupery 1943: 12)

Example (34) has been taken from an interview with an international specialist in mad cow disease, published in the French newspaper Libération (30–31.10.99). Though the antecedent remains undifferentiated in example (34), its existence is affirmed with the Indicative. The journalist uses this mood to assert that the report of French scientists provides new information that justifies the embargo that the European Community has recently removed from British beef. (34) A votre avis, le rapport français apportait-il quelque chose de nouveau qui justifiait (I) le rétablissement de l’embargo ? (Libération, 30-31.10.99, p. 9) ‘In your opinion, did the French report provide anything new that justified (I) [justifiait] the restoring of the embargo?’

Examples (1)–(34) show how the encoder uses the opposition between the Indicative and the Subjunctive to assume or to avoid, respectively, his/her commitment to an occurrence. The Indicative emphasizes the certainty of an occurrence, while the Subjunctive emphasizes its uncertainty.


If the differentiation of entities influences the encoder’s choice of mood, one would expect that undifferentiated antecedents in the main clause would favor the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause more than differentiated antecedents would.24 To validate my predictions, I calculate the rate (percentage) of the Subjunctive for texts of different styles and genres. I also calculate the odds ratio (OR) that indicates the degree of observed correlation between the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative, on the one hand, and that of undifferentiated and differentiated antecedents, on the other. The odds ratio is obtained by dividing the product of the first pair of numbers by the product of the second pair. If four possible outcomes are referred to as a, b, c, d, their odds ratio is calculated as follows: OR = (c/a) × (b/d). An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates a significant degree of correlation between two data sets. Finally, for greater persuasion, I calculate the Z-value of the significance of odds ratios. Following Davis (2002: 84–85), the significance test is done as follows: 1. Determine the logarithm (ln) of the odds ratio for each text and their arithmetic average or mean (x), according to the formula: x = (ln(OR1) + ln(OR2) + …ln(ORn))/ntables. 2. Calculate the variance (σ2)25 for the four possible outcomes (a, b, c, d) of each text, according to the formula: σ2 = 1/a + 1/b + 1/c + 1/d. 3. Calculate the standard error (SE) of the mean x, according to the formula: SE = σ 21 + σ 22 + ...σ 2n / ntables .

4. The Z-value is calculated as follows: Z = x/SE. The result is compared to a standard Z-table (cf. Muller 1992: 175), according to which a significant Z-value must be greater than 2.054. The probability p of the Z-value 2.054 is 0.04, which means that in 96 cases out of 100 the calculated result is not within the realm of chance. I have excluded from the count the sentences whose relative clauses follow antecedents with the superlative expressions le plus ‘the most’ or le moins ‘the least’ X or their equivalents. Among these are restrictive adjectives such as le seul, l’unique ‘the only’, restrictive expressions such as il n’y a que ‘only’, ordinal adjectives such as le premier ‘the first’, le dernier ‘the last’. As previously stated, the use of the Oc-

24. In addition to the indefinite articles and the numerals un and une, the message of incomplete differentiation is also expressed by indefinite quantifiers such as certains ‘certain’, quelques ‘some’, plusieurs ‘several’, divers ‘diverse’. 25. Davis (2002: 85) designates the variance by S. However, according to Muller (1992: 73, 82– 84, 88), the calculated variance is typically designated as σ2.


currence System with the superlatives implies negation, and not the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. It represents another communicative strategy that must be validated differently. Sentence-oriented grammar (cf. Eriksson 1979: 11–13; Kampers-Manhe 1991: 78–85) distinguishes between so-called restrictive relative clauses and socalled explicative, non-restrictive relative clauses. The former limit the number of referents of their antecedents, whereas the latter provide additional information about referents of their antecedents, but do not limit their number. It is argued that one can choose between the Indicative and the Subjunctive only within restrictive relative clauses. In explicative, non-restrictive relative clauses, the use of the Indicative is required. I do not share this distinction because it is based on diverse syntactic and semantic criteria and is the matter of the subjective interpretation. The same relative clause can often be viewed either as an explicative or as a restrictive one, as in example (35): (35) Les chiens qu’on croyait enragés ont été abattus. ‘The dogs which are supposed to be mad have been put down.’

The explicative, non-restrictive interpretation implies that ‘all the dogs have been put down because they were supposed to be mad’. The restrictive interpretation implies that ‘only those dogs have been put down that were supposed to be mad. The other dogs have been left alive’. Therefore, I do not attribute the encoder’s choice of mood to the nature of a relative clause. I deal with the encoder’s choice as resulting from the correlation between the invariant meanings of the signs that constitute the System of Differentiation and the signs of the Occurrence System. Both the Subjunctive and the Indicative can follow antecedents with the indefinite and the definite articles. However, antecedents with the indefinite articles refer to entities to the differentiation of which the encoder does not commit. The minimal pair of examples (36)–(37) illustrates this use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in relative clauses. (36) Je cherche le livre qui vous conviendra (I) le mieux. ‘I’m looking for the book that will (I) fit [conviendra] you the best.’ (37) Je cherche un livre qui vous convienne (S) le mieux. ‘I’m looking for the book that would (S) fit (S) [convienne] you the best.’

This leads to the following prediction: Prediction 1: Undifferentiated antecedents in the main clause favor the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause more than differentiated antecedents.


The counts have been made on entire texts taken from the 20th century French prose and drama. These texts include Antigone by Anouilh (1963), Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936), L’Arrache-Cœur ‘Heartsnatcher’ by Vian (1962), Le Revolver de Maigret by Simenon (1952) and Caligula followed by Le Malentendu ‘The Misunderstanding’ by Camus (1958). The number of occurrences of the Subjunctive, used in relative clauses, was low in some texts of the corpus. Therefore, I have calculated all the occurrences of both moods in relative clauses, introduced by undifferentiated and differentiated antecedents, as if they were used in a single text. The results of the count for Prediction 1 appear in Table 1. Table 1. Correlation of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative in the subordinate clause with undifferentiated vs. differentiated antecedents in the main clause Undifferentiated

Differentiated

Indicative

519

863

Subjunctive

54

Subjunctive (%) OR Z*

6 9.4% : 0.7% 14.965 : 1 6.259

* The Z-value in Table 1 is calculated as follows: 1. The logarithm (ln) of the odds ratio is: ln(14.965) = 2.706. Since all the occurrences of both moods in relative clauses are considered as if they were used in a single text, the arithmetic average or mean (x) of their odds ratio equals their logarithm and is 2.706. 2. The variance (σ2) for the given results is: σ2 = 1/519 + 1/863 + 1/54 + 1/(6 + 0.05) = 0.187. The value 0.05 is added for any result with under than 20 tokens. 3. The standard error (SE) of the calculated variance is: SE = 0.187 = 0.432. 4. The Z-value of the observed odds ratio is: Z = 2.706/0.432 = 6.259.

The data in Table 1 come from a sample of more than one thousand instances of the Indicative versus the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause and undifferentiated versus differentiated antecedents in the main clause. The data in Table 1 strongly confirm my prediction. One can see that the rate of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative following undifferentiated antecedents is 9.4% versus 0.7% after differentiated ones. The odds ratio (OR) for all the occurrences as if they were a single text indicates a tendency in favor of the Subjunctive that is about fifteen times as prevalent for undifferentiated antecedents as for differentiated ones. The Z-value (Z) in Table 1 exceeds considerably the significance value of 2.054, which allows me to claim that this odds ratio could hardly be attributed to a simple chance. The observed distribution is less than 100% because the encoder is free to decide either to emphasize an alternative with the Subjunctive or to emphasize

111


an occurrence with the Indicative. Reid (1983 [1979]) states the following on the distribution of less than 100%: […] a skewing of less than 100% does not constitute a less than complete confirmation of the prediction, nor does it require an additional accounting of the short end of the skewing […] before the results can be taken as confirming. Noncategorical skewings are to be expected in view of the fact that the deployment of meanings is determined by multiple, potentially conflicting factors. (Reid 1983 [1979]: 207)

Example (34) has shown that the encoder can use the Indicative after undifferentiated antecedents to commit to their existence, even though their identity remains unspecified. This accounts for the appearance of the Indicative with undifferentiated antecedents in Table 1. Moreover, the data have shown that even the syntactic government in the sentence-oriented sense of the term does not guarantee a 100% correlation. The use of differentiated antecedents with the Subjunctive is irregular. The meaning of the definite articles Differentiation is Complete conflicts with the avoidance of the encoder’s commitment to the differentiation of entities, implied by the Subjunctive. All the exceptional examples in Table 1 concern the use of the Imperfect Subjunctive. I show subsequently that the invariant meaning of the Imperfect Subjunctive simultaneously relates to the Occurrence System and the System of Relevance. The latter deals with the relative relevance of an occurrence to the encoder or to the communication in progress. I postulate that the Imperfect Subjunctive means Less Relevant alternative. In Contemporary French, it can be used for hypothetical, unreal or counterfactual occurrences that might have happened, but did not. Example (38), taken from the novel Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936), illustrates this point. In this example, the narrator hypothesizes how specific opportunities (the beauty spot, the drug, the device) might have changed one’s life, if they had been perceived. However, these opportunities had been missed, i.e. they are less relevant to the narrator. Therefore, they appear in the Imperfect Subjunctive in example (38). (38) Il y a le site qui eût (S) encadré votre amour, le médicament qui vous eût (S) sauvé, la combinaison qui vous eût (S) fait gagner du temps. Tout cela vous attendait, mais personne ne vous l’a indiqué, parce que vous n’aviez pas assez de relations. (Montherlant 1936 : 23) ‘The beauty spot might (S) have framed [eût encadré] your love, the drug might (S) have saved [eût sauvé] you, the device might (S) have helped [eût fait] you to gain time. All that waited for you but nobody had showed it to you because you did not have enough connections.’


Therefore, the appearance of the Subjunctive after differentiated antecedents in Table 1 arises from the interlock of the two systems – the Occurrence System and the System of Relevance.

5.2 Personalized versus depersonalized occurrences Another way to express the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence is to indicate someone who could take responsibility for its outcome, i.e. to personalize an occurrence. The depersonalization of an occurrence shows that the encoder avoids referring to anyone who could take responsibility for its outcome, denying his/her commitment. In this case, an occurrence is introduced either by so-called impersonal expressions, by non-referential pronouns such as ceci, cela, ça ‘it’ or by abstract nouns such as l’espoir ‘hope’, la pensée ‘thought’, l’idée ‘idea’. Compare the personalized occurrence in example (39) with the depersonalized one in example (40): (39) Je crois qu’il ne t’a (I) pas reconnu. ‘I think that he has (I) not recognized [a reconnu] you.’ (40) Il semble qu’il ne t’ait (S) pas reconnu. ‘It seems that he might (S) not recognize [ait reconnu] you.’

I claim that the meaning Occurrence of the Indicative, implying the encoder’s commitment, is more appropriate to personalize an occurrence. The meaning Alternative to Occurrence of the Subjunctive, deemphasizing the encoder’s commitment, is more appropriate to depersonalize an occurrence. I later show that the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause is preferred when the main clause does not refer to anyone specifically, whereas the Indicative is favored when the main clause refers to a specific person who perceives an occurrence. It could be argued, however, that the non-referential expressions il (m’)apparaît que, il (me) paraît que ‘it appears (to me) that’, il se trouve que ‘it turns out that’ favor the Indicative. Nordahl (1969: 158, 176) calculated the instances of the Indicative and the Subjunctive, used with different non-referential expressions. The results of her count for affirmative non-referential expressions are presented in Table 2. I have excluded negation and interrogation from Nordahl’s count to cancel out their influence on the use of mood. The results in Table 2 show the strong increase in the instances of the Subjunctive for the expression il (me, lui) semble que, personalized by a so-called dative pronoun, versus the non-referential il semble que. The three instances of the Subjunctive that Nordahl (1969: 158, 159) found for il (me) paraît que also appear after the non-referential expression. Moreover,


Table 2. The distribution of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative for different non-referential expressions Affirmation Il (m’)apparait que Il (me) parait que Il se trouve que Il se peut que Il arrive que Il semble que Il (me, lui) semble que

Rate (%)

Subjunctive 0 3 0

Indicative 42 379 31

Subjunctive 0% 0.8% 0%

Indicative 100% 99.2% 100%

50 82 316 55

0 31 92 1162

100% 72.6% 77.5% 4.5%

0% 27.4% 22.5% 95.5%

according to Nordahl (ibid: 167–168), non-referential expressions, personalized by third person pronouns (e.g., il lui/leur semble que ‘it seems to him/her/them that’), favor the Subjunctive more than those, personalized by first person pronouns (e.g., il me semble que ‘it seems to me that’). The difference in rate is 6.9% to 1.7%, respectively. García (1975: 61–71) postulates the meaning Other for the third person pronouns versus the meaning Speaker for the first person pronouns. It is not surprising that the pronouns that do not refer to the encoder directly favor the Subjunctive more than those that do. The results in Table 2 additionally show different distribution for different non-referential expressions. The expressions il apparaît que, il paraît que and il se trouve que mean that the following statement seems likely or true, implying the relative encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. Therefore, even being impersonal, they strongly favor the Indicative. The expressions il semble que, il arrive que and il se peut que lessen the likelihood of a following statement, deemphasizing the encoder’s commitment. Therefore, they favor the Subjunctive. This point is illustrated by the set of examples (41)–(44). Example (41) has been taken from Le Petit Prince by Saint-Exupery (1946). It presents the use of the Indicative with the non-referential expression il paraît que ‘it appears that’ to imply the relative encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. In this example, the rose feels uncertain before the prince’s departure, which is shown by the impersonal expression il paraît que. However, she assures the prince that she does not need his care and uses the Indicative to emphasize that. (41) – Il faut bien que je supporte deux ou trois chenilles si je veux connaître les papillons. Il paraît que c’est (I) tellement beau. (Saint-Exupéry 1946 : 36) ‘“Well, I must endure the presence of two or three caterpillars if I wish to become acquainted with butterflies. It seems that they are (I) [est] very beautiful…”’ (Saint-Exupery 1943: 34)


Example (42) has been taken from the novel La peste ‘The Plague’ by Camus (1947b). It presents the use of the Subjunctive with the non-referential expression il semble que ‘it seems that’ to deemphasize the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. In this example, the narrator shows that the people of a city, stricken with a plague, no longer feel pity for the groaning victims. Throughout the novel, however, the narrator shows that the most important thing is to help to fight the disease and the suffering, not to disregard them. Therefore, he uses the Subjunctive to emphasize this alternative and to avoid committing to the people’s indifference. (42) De quelques maisons pourtant, sortaient des gémissements. Auparavant, quand cela arrivait, on voyait souvent des curieux qui se tenaient dans la rue, aux écoutes. Mais, après ces longues alertes, il semblait que le cœur de chacun se fût (S) endurci et tous marchaient ou vivaient à côté des plaintes comme si elles avaient été le langage naturel des hommes. (Camus 1947b : 95) ‘In some houses groans could be heard. At first, when that happened, people often gathered outside and listened, prompted by curiosity or compassion. But under the prolonged strain it seemed that hearts had (S) toughened [se fût endurci]; people lived beside those groans or walked past them as though they had become the normal speech of men.’ (Camus 1960 [1948]: 102–103)

As previously stated, the Indicative also appears after il semble que, though much less than the Subjunctive. This fact leads Brunot (1965: 534) and Harmer (1954: 269) to argue that the Indicative and the Subjunctive are used after il semble que without any semantic distinction. Consider Harmer (ibid) on this matter: It only remains to add that the thesis advanced by some modern grammarians that the subjunctive mood after il semble que indicates more dubiety and less objectivity than when the indicative is used hardly seems to be borne out in practice […] (Harmer 1954: 271)

I have previously claimed that the choice of one mood over the other “is determined by their meanings in connection with the message the encoder desires to convey” (Tobin 1995: 127). In example (43), taken from La peste ‘The Plague’ as the above example, the narrator also chooses the non-referential il semble que to present a narrative as being viewed by an outsider.26 However, in this example, found on the same page (!) as example (42), he uses the Indicative in the subordinate clause. The correlation of this mood with the non-referential expression allows the narrator to present facts as objectively as possible. In this example, he 26. The novel L’étranger ‘The Stranger’ by Camus (1942), which is one of his first and most famous novels, is sometimes translated as ‘The Outsider’.


describes the unbearable heat that descends upon the stricken city. In example (42), the narrator uses the Subjunctive to avoid his commitment to the people’s behavior, whereas in example (43) he uses the Indicative to depict the hot weather as an objective natural phenomenon. (43) Peu après le prêche, les chaleurs commencèrent. […] Le soleil se fixa. Des flots ininterrompus de chaleur et de lumière inondèrent la ville à longueur de journée. En dehors des rues à arcades et des appartements, il semblait qu’il n’était (I) pas un point de la ville qui ne fût placé dans la réverbération la plus aveuglante. Le soleil poursuivait nos concitoyens dans tous les coins de rue […] (Camus 1947b : 95) ‘Shortly after Father Paneloux’s sermon the hot weather set in with a vengeance. […] And then the sun took charge, incessant waves of heat and light swept the town daylong, and but for arcaded streets and the interiors of houses, [it seemed that] everything lay (I) [était] naked to the dazzling impact of the light. The sun stalked our townsfolk along every byway, into every nook […]’ (Camus 1960 [1948]: 102)

As previously stated, the personalization of an occurrence implies the encoder’s commitment to its outcome. The personalization of non-referential expressions is made by a so-called dative noun or pronoun that refers to the one who perceives an occurrence: e.g., il semble à mon père que ‘it seems to my father that’, il lui semble que ‘it seems to him/her that’. Nølke (2001) states on the matter as follows: […] le locuteur dispose d’un moyen linguistique pour préciser qui assume la responsabilité de pdv1 [Nølke’s le point de vue]… Tel semble en effet être le rôle que joue le datif dans cette structure. (Nølke 2001: 24) ‘[…] the speaker has a linguistic means to specify who assumes the commitment to the pdv1 [a point of view, conveyed by the “subordinate clause”]… The dative actually seems to play this role in this structure.’

Example (44), taken from the short story L’Huissier ‘The Bailiff ’ by Aymé (1943), illustrates this point. It presents the use of the non-referential expression il semble que, personalized by a dative pronoun to emphasize the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. In this example, a deceased bailiff claims his place in Paradise, though all his colleagues went to hell. Saint Peter’s suggestion that the bailiff is mistaken appears in the Indicative because he realizes that the bailiff sinned enough to go in hell. (44) – Vous vous appelez Malicorne et vous êtes huissier. Il n’y en a guère au Paradis. – Ça ne fait rien, répondit Malicorne. Je ne tiens pas autrement à être avec des confrères. […]


– Il me semble, mon garçon, que vous avez (I) pas mal d’illusions. (Aymé 1943 : 231–232) ‘“Your name is Malicorne and you are a bailiff. There are hardly any of them in Paradise.” “It doesn’t matter, answered Malicorne. I don’t particularly like to be with colleagues.” […] “It seems to me, boy, that you have (I) [avez] quite a lot of illusions.”’

Though we have seen from Nordahl’s data (1969: 158) that the Subjunctive is much more unusual in this context, I claim that the choice of this mood is motivated by its invariant meaning, as in all the previous examples. The “forced marriage” of the Subjunctive with the expression il me (lui, etc.) semble que produces a specific communicative effect. It emphasizes a difference (an alternative) of opinion that cannot be disregarded in a given context. Example (45), taken from a review article by Šabršula (1974), illustrates this point. In this example, Šabršula discusses Boysen’s hierarchy of factors that allegedly govern the French Subjunctive (cf. Boysen 1971). Among these factors, Boysen distinguishes between derivative prefixes (Boysen’s dérivatif) and the categories of tense and person (Boysen’s flexif). Both factors play an important role in Boysen’s analysis, with which Šabršula disagrees by using the Subjunctive. (45) En conclusion, on peut être d’accord avec Gerhard Boysen lorsqu’il écrit que les emplois du subjonctif en français moderne peuvent être décrits comme dépendant du jeu d’une série de facteurs, qui relèvent du flexif, de la syntaxe, du dérivatif et de la « racine » (il nous semble qu’il ne soit (S) pas avantageux de séparer le dérivatif et le flexif, surtout dans une étude qui veut tenir compte de la fréquence; la hiérarchisation de l’auteur est arbitraire). (Šabršula 1974 : 153) ‘In conclusion, one can agree with Gerhard Boysen when he writes that the uses of the modern French subjunctive can be represented as being dependent on a series of factors, which are the product of the inflected categories, the syntax, the derivative prefixes and the “root”. (It seems to us that it is (S) [soit] worthless to separate the derivative prefixes from the inflected categories, especially in a study that wants to take into account the frequency; the hierarchy of the author is arbitrary).’

An occurrence of the subordinate clause can also be depersonalized by non-referential pronouns such as ceci, cela, ça ‘it’ and abstract nouns such as l’espoir ‘hope’, la pensée ‘thought’, l’idée ‘idea’ in the main clause. Parallel to non-referential expressions, they do not refer to any specific person who would perceive an occurrence and take responsibility for its outcome.


The set of examples (46)–(47) presents the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause following the verb expliquer ‘to explain’ in the main clause. The subject of expliquer can be both a human being and a non-referential pronoun. The human subject refers to someone who explains an occurrence. This implies the encoder’s commitment to a provided explanation and fits in with the invariant meaning of the Indicative preferred in this context. Example (46), taken from the novel Un crime by Bernanos (1969) [1935], illustrates this point. In this passage, villagers find a dying man. A young boy explains to the village mayor that the man snatched the handkerchief out of his hands when he tried to dress the wound. The boy describes what exactly has happened that is why his explanation appears in the Indicative. (46) Le garçon expliqua, en un flot de paroles confuses, qu’il le lui avait (I) arraché des mains. (Bernanos 1969 [1935] : 51) ‘The boy explained by a flow of confused words that he had (I) snatched [avait arraché] it out of his hands.’

The subject of expliquer, expressed by a non-referential pronoun, does not refer to anyone who would provide a necessary explanation, but rather to the circumstances that justify an occurrence. This allows the encoder to avoid committing to an occurrence, which fits in with the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive, favored in this context. Example (47), taken from Guillaume (1970), illustrates this claim. In this example, Guillaume explains why sentence-oriented grammar cannot arrive at a one form-one meaning relationship. According to Guillaume, sentence-oriented grammar equates the most common uses of a form with its meanings. However, these meanings are not abstract enough to contribute to all the uses of a form. The Subjunctive appears in Guillaume’s explanation to deemphasize his commitment to the sentence-oriented point of view and to imply an alternative viewpoint. (47) Ceci explique qu’il y ait (S) toujours quelque disconvenance entre les définitions que la grammaire traditionnelle donne d’une forme et les emplois réels de cette forme, dont un certain nombre, même dans le cas le plus favorable, échappe à la formule qui vise à les embrasser tous. (Guillaume 1970 : 124) ‘This explains why there is (S) [ait] always some inconsistency between the definitions that traditional grammar attributes to a form and the real uses of this form, a certain number of which, even in the most favorable case, escapes from the formula, which is intended to embrace all of them.’

The set of examples (48)–(49) presents the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause following the verb espérer ‘to hope’ and the abstract noun l’espoir ‘the hope’ in the main clause. The verb espérer requires a subject, a


human being who expresses the hope that an occurrence will take place, implying, thus, the encoder’s commitment to that occurrence. Though espérer expresses a desired occurrence that is actually not taking place, it differs from the verbs of volition. Espérer implies the probability of an occurrence, which also allows the encoder to commit to its outcome. Guillaume (1970) comments on this matter as follows: Qui espère, désire, mais tandis que le désir se fait sentir sans que la pensée ait accès au sentiment de probabilité, l’espérance, au contraire, ne naît que de l’accès à ce sentiment,– le désir étant maintenu. Sans une probabilité minima, il n’existe aucune raison d’espérer, on peut désirer seulement. (Guillaume 1970 : 38) ‘Whoever hopes desires. However, while the desire entails the refusal to enter the realm of the probable, the hope, on the contrary, is born only because it enters this desired realm. Without a minimum probability, there is no point in hoping, one can only desire.’

Therefore, espérer in the main clause correlates with the Indicative in the subordinate clause. Example (48), taken from Les Caves du Vatican ‘The Vatican Cellars’ by Gide (1975) [1922], illustrates this point. In this passage, Lafcadio, the illegitimate son of Count de Baraglioul, hopes that the latter will be willing to receive him. Lafcadio’s hope is expressed, therefore, with the Indicative. (48) – Ce Monsieur espère que Monsieur le comte voudra (I) bien le recevoir. (Gide 1975 [1922] : 68) ‘“The gentleman hopes that M. le Comte will (I) be [voudra] good enough to see him.”’ (Gide 1952: 60)

The abstract noun l’espoir does not refer to a human being who expresses the hope in the way the verb espérer does. It can only show that the hope that an occurrence will take place belongs to someone: cf. mon espoir est que ‘my hope is that’ versus j’espère que ‘I hope that’. Therefore, the encoder’s commitment to that occurrence is avoided, which correlates with the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive. Example (49), taken from the short story L’Ange Gardien ‘The Guardian Angel’ by Maurois (1946), illustrates this point. This story deals with letters that a husband receives from his wife after her death. Being aware of the hot temper of her husband, she had foreseen that certain events could take place and had written several warning letters to him. In this passage, the narrator has a vague hope that she had foreseen that her husband would have a compromising liaison and had written a warning letter about it. The author does not commit to whether or not she had foreseen this specific situation and, therefore, uses the Subjunctive.


(49) « Il ne reste », dis-je un soir à Bertrand, « qu’un seul espoir… C’est que Jeanne ait (S) prévu cet accident-là comme le précédent et qu’un jour arrive (S) chez Bertaut un avertissement signé d’elle… » (Maurois 1946 : 106) ‘One evening, I said to Bertrand: “There’s only one hope… that Jeanne foresaw (S) [ait prévu] something of this sort as well, and that a warning written by her will (S) reach [arrive] Bertaut…”’ (Maurois 1949: 321)

Examples (39)–(49) show how the encoder uses the Indicative and the Subjunctive with personalization or depersonalization to commit or, respectively, avoid committing to an occurrence. Both moods are used with personal and impersonal constructions. However, a depersonalized occurrence shows that the encoder avoids referring to anyone who could take responsibility for its outcome. The minimal pair of examples (50)–(51) illustrates this use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive following personal and impersonal expressions. (50) Il me semble qu’il ne t’a (I) pas reconnu. ‘It seems to me that he has (I) not recognized [a reconnu] you.’ (51) Il semble qu’il ne t’ait (S) pas reconnu. ‘It seems that he might (S) not recognize [ait reconnu] you.’

Therefore, I expect that impersonal expressions with non-referential grammatical subjects correlate more with the Subjunctive than with the Indicative. Prediction 2: Impersonal, non-referential expressions in the main clause favor the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause rather than the Indicative.

The results of the count for Prediction 2 are presented in Table 3. The data in Table 3 are based on a sample of more than one thousand five hundred instances of the Indicative (Ind) and the Subjunctive (Sub) in the subordinate clause with non-referential (N) and referential (R) expressions in the main clause. These results are also consistent with my prediction. The cross totals rate of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative following non-referential expressions Table 3. Correlation of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative in the subordinate clause with non-referential vs. referential expressions in the main clause

Ind Sub OR Sub % Z

Anouilh N R

Montherl N R

25 28

67 85

84 17 5.534

256 106 3.064

N

Vian

R

9 104 44 39 13.037 55.4% : 24.3% 11.378

Simenon N R

Camus N R

36 42

67 54

188 50 4.387

219 61 2.894


is 55.4% versus 24.3% after referential ones. The odds ratio (OR) of each text is much greater than 1, which points out the significance of the predicted correlation. The Z-value (Z) for all the odds ratios considerably exceeds the significance value of 2.054, which allows me to claim that the observed distribution is unlikely the result of chance. This distribution is less than 100% because of a general need for being more specific that leads the encoder to use the Subjunctive with personal, referential constructions as well.

5.3 The degree of the encoder’s attention, concentrated on the subject The encoder’s commitment to an occurrence can also be expressed by the formal position of the subject, as in interrogative sentences. The more formally interrogation is expressed in the main clause – particularly, by word order – the more the encoder uses the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Compare the less formal interrogation in example (52) with the more formal one in example (53): (52) Tu crois qu’il dort (I) ? ‘You think he is (I) sleeping [dort], don’t you?’ (53) Crois-tu qu’il dorme (S) ? ‘Do you think he may (S) be sleeping [dorme]?’

Formal interrogation is expressed by the inverted or indirect (Verb-Subject or VS) word order with the subject preceded by the verb. In spoken language, “the indirect word order is avoided […] by a variety of means” (Harmer 1954: 57–65): a. A question can be comprised of the expression est-ce que: e.g., quand partirezvous? ‘when will you leave?’ versus quand est-ce que vous partirez? ‘when is it that you will leave?’. b. A question can be asked with the direct word order of affirmation, combined with a rising intonation: e.g., vous partirez ‘you will leave’ versus vous partirez? ‘will you leave?’. c. The interrogative pronoun can be put at the end of a sentence: e.g., quand partirez-vous? versus vous partirez quand? ‘when will you leave?’. In all these cases, interrogation is expressed by the direct (Subject-Verb or SV) word order with the subject preceding the verb. The Subjunctive is preferred in the subordinate clause following inversion in the main clause, whereas the Indicative is favored in the subordinate clause following the direct word order. This claim is illustrated by examples (54)–(56).


Example (54) has been taken from the short story Après dix ans ‘After Ten Years’ by Maurois (1946). In this example, Isabelle’s husband feels uncomfortable speaking about a woman whom he loved ten years ago. Isabelle asks him a question implying with the Subjunctive that she might also suffer. (54)

– Isabelle, cela m’est pénible. – Croyez-vous que cela m’ait (S) été agréable?… (Maurois 1946 : 18) ‘“Isabelle, this is painful to me.” “Do you believe I found (S) [ait été] it agreeable?…’ (Maurois 1949: 315)

Example (55) has been taken from Les Caves du Vatican ‘The Vatican Cellars’ by Gide (1975) [1922]. In this example, Lafcadio and his stepbrother Julius discuss the apparently unmotivated and spontaneous murder of Julius’s brother-in-law. Though the victim’s name was unpublished, Julius infers his identity from newspaper reports, but he does not know that Lafcadio not only committed this murder, but also he was aware that it was Julius’s relative. Lafcadio feigns surprise and asks Julius a question implying with the Subjunctive that Julius might be mistaken in his suppositions. (55) Julius. – […] C’est affreux : figurez-vous qu’on vient d’assassiner mon beaufrère ! Lafcadio. – Quoi ! le petit vieux du wagon, c’est… Julius. – C’était Amédée Fleurissoire, à qui j’avais prêté mon billet, que je venais de mettre dans le train. […] – Êtes-vous bien sûr que ce soit (S) lui ? (La voix de Lafcadio tremblait un peu.) (Gide 1975 [1922] : 207, 209) Julius. […] Frightful! Only think of it! My brother-in-law has just been murdered! Lafcadio. What! the old fellow in the railway carriage was… Julius. He was Amédée Fleurissoire. I had just lent him my ticket and seen off at the station. […] “Are you quite sure it was (S) [soit] he?” Lafcadio’s voice trembled a little. (Gide 1952: 205, 207)

Example (56), taken from the novel La Voie royale ‘The Royal Way’ by Malraux (1968) [1930], serves as a counterexample to both of the above examples. The novel deals with the archeologist Claude Vannec and the adventurer Perken who travel in the Cambodian jungles to steal sculptures from Khmer temples. In this passage, they speak about another adventurer, named Grabot, who is expected to assist them. Therefore, both questions appear in the Indicative.


– Malgré les fléchettes, vous croyez qu’il va (I) nous laisser passer ? – S’il est seul, oui. – Et vous êtes sûr qu’il ne connaît (I) pas l’importance de ces pierres ? Perken haussa les épaules : – Inculte. Moi-même… (Malraux 1968 [1930] : 113) ‘“In spite of darts, do you think that he will (I) let [va] us through?” “If he is alone, yes.” “Are you sure that he is (I) [connaît] not aware of the value of these stones?” Perken shrugged his shoulders: “Ignorant. So am I …”’ (56)

Examples (54)–(56) illustrate the choice of one mood over the other as being motivated by their invariant meanings and by the formal position of the subject. Gildin (1982, 1989) considers word order as a linguistic sign in French. Among sentences where only a subject is specified, Gildin distinguishes between the subject, expressed by a noun, and the subject, expressed by a personal pronoun. Word order with the subject-noun constitutes the Focus System. Word order with the subject-pronoun constitutes “a larger grammatical system which is used to explicitly introduce considerations of probability into the event” (Gildin 1989: 169). According to Gildin, the semantic substance of the Focus System is concentration of attention. Within this system, the direct (SV) word order means in focus (strong concentration of attention on the subject). The indirect (VS) word order means not in focus (weak concentration of attention on the subject). Within the second grammatical system, the indirect (VS-pronoun) word order means probability is explicitly considered. Although Gildin does not deal with word order in interrogative sentences, she provides guidelines that I follow in my analysis. My preliminary hypothesis is that the Focus System underlies word order in interrogation in French. The semantic substance of this Focus System is the degree of the encoder’s attention, concentrated on the subject. This is a three-level system that comprises the direct (SV) word order (e.g., Il part?), (Snoun V-Spronoun) word order with pronominal reduplication of the subject (e.g., Pierre part-il?), and the indirect (VS) word order (e.g., Part-il?). Within this system, the direct word order means High Focus attributed to the subject. Word order with pronominal reduplication of the subject means Mid Focus. The indirect word order means Low Focus. For the sake of simplicity, I distinguish the direct word order from any inverted word order. I postulate the invariant meaning of the former as In Focus, whereas the invariant meaning of the latter is postulated as Not In Focus. The meaning In Focus shows that the subject of a sentence is at the center of the encoder’s attention. This implies that the encoder commits to how the subject perceives an oc-


currence. The meaning Not In Focus shows that the subject is at the periphery of the encoder’s attention. This implies that the encoder does not commit to how the subject perceives an occurrence. Consider Huot (1986) who states the following about the difference between the direct and the inverted word order: En disant Voulez-vous que je vous accompagne ? on exprime, par politesse, une incertitude qui laisse à l’interlocuteur la liberté complète de dire oui ou non [alternative!], sans que son refus soit désobligeant […], comme il pourrait l’être en réponse à : Vous voulez que je vous accompagne? par quoi le locuteur offre son aide en laissant entendre qu’il considère que l’interlocuteur la désire. (Huot 1986 : 102, note 18) ‘By saying Do you want me to go with you? one expresses politely an uncertainty which gives the hearer complete freedom to say yes or no, without his refusal being discourteous, as it could be in reply to: You want me to go with you, don’t you? by which the speaker offers his help implying that the hearer wants it.’

In example (54), the subject (the husband) is attributed the meaning Not In Focus because he did not realize that his unfaithfulness was painful for Isabelle. In example (55), the subject (Julius) is attributed the meaning Not In Focus to imply that he might be wrong in his suppositions. In example (56), the subject (Perken) involves Vannec in the adventure and leads him through the Cambodian jungles. He is more experienced and better informed than Vannec is and, therefore, is attributed the meaning In Focus. The postulated invariant meanings account for the “forced marriage” of seemingly incompatible meanings. I mean the use of the Indicative for the subject that is Not In Focus and the exceptional use of the Subjunctive for the subject that is In Focus. Figure 5 represents schematically the four strategies of the correlation of the Occurrence System and the Focus System in interrogative sentences. Line a represents the use of the indirect (VS) word order in the main clause with the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause, as in examples (54)–(55). This correlation is used to deemphasize both the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence by implying its alternative and the subject who perceives it. Line b represents the a

VS

Subjunctive

c d SV

b

Indicative

Figure 5. The four strategies of the correlation of the Occurrence System and the Focus System in interrogative sentences


use of the direct (SV) word order in the main clause with the Indicative in the subordinate clause, as in example (56). This correlation is used to emphasize both the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence, as it is perceived by the subject, and the subject who perceives it. Line c represents the use of the indirect (VS) word order in the main clause with the Indicative in the subordinate clause, as in example (57). The Indicative in the subordinate clause represents a situation, perceived as an occurrence by the encoder. However, the meaning Not In Focus of the indirect word order in the main clause shows that the encoder does not commit to how the subject of a sentence perceives the same occurrence. Example (57), provided by Lalaire (1998), is the question that the priest asks a catechumen before baptism. A catechumen must say whether he/she believes in the resurrection of Christ. On the one hand, the inversion of the subject (a catechumen) shows that the encoder (the priest) does not commit to the catechumen’s answer. On the other hand, the Indicative is used because the priest adheres to the religious doctrine that proclaims the resurrection of Christ as being true. (57) Croyez-vous que le Christ est (I) ressuscité d’entre les morts ? (Lalaire 1998 : 251–252) ‘Do you believe that Christ rose (I) [est ressuscité] from the dead?’

Line d represents the irregular use of the direct (SV) word order in the main clause with the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause. On the one hand, the meaning In Focus of the direct word order shows that the way the subject of the main clause perceives an occurrence deserves the encoder’s attention. On the other hand, the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause implies an alternative to the same occurrence, deemphasizing the encoder’s commitment to it. The seeming inconsistency between the direct word order in the main clause and the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause results in a rather small number of such sentences in French.27 This correlation is exploited to express very subtly the encoder’s disagreement with how the subject perceives an occurrence. In particular, this claim is illustrated by the set of examples (58)–(59). Example (58) has been taken from L’invitée ‘She Came to Stay’ by Beauvoir (1943). It presents a question with the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause, intro-

27. For example, in questions, introduced by the expression est-ce que, Nordahl (1969: 214) has found five instances of the direct word order with the Subjunctive versus 76 instances with the Indicative. This rate is even less in questions, made by intonation. Nordahl (ibid: 214–215, 222) speaks about five instances of the direct word order with the Subjunctive versus 362 (p. 214) or 382 (p. 222) instances with the Indicative. Börjeson (1966: 34–35) finds two instances of the direct word order with the Subjunctive versus 184 instances with the Indicative in questions, made by intonation, and no Subjunctive in questions, introduced by est-ce que.


duced by the expression est-ce que with the direct word order in the main clause. In this passage, Elisabeth asks her lover Claude about the month that was a socalled trial period in their relations. During this period, Claude slept with her, but did not break up with his wife. Claude enjoyed having had a wife and a mistress, whereas Elisabeth felt unhappy about it. On the one hand, Claude, the subject of the main clause, is attributed the meaning In Focus because Elisabeth knows that he thinks that she was happy during this month. On the other hand, Elisabeth speaks about the trial period in the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause subtly implying that she might have been unhappy. (58) – Franchement, Claude, est-ce que tu trouves que l’expérience de ce mois ait (S) été heureuse ? dit-elle. – Quelle expérience ? dit-il. Le sang monta aux joues d’Elisabeth et sa voix trembla un peu. – Si nous avons conservé nos rapports après l’explication du mois dernier, c’était à titre d’expérience, l’as-tu oublié ? – Ah ! oui…, dit Claude. Il n’avait pas pris au sérieux l’idée d’une rupture […] – Tu es si simple au fond; tu ne t’es jamais rendu compte que je n’étais pas heureuse. (Beauvoir 1943 : 86, 87) ‘‘Frankly, Claude, have you found this month’s experiment a happy one (S) [ait été]?’ she said. ‘What experiment?’ he said. The blood rushed to Elisabeth’s face, and her voice trembled a little. ‘If we have kept on seeing one another after our heart-to-heart a month ago, it was only by way of an experiment. Have you forgotten?’ ‘Oh, of course…’ said Claude. He had not taken seriously the idea of a complete break […] ‘Fundamentally you’re a very simple soul. You were never really aware that I wasn’t happy.’’ (Beauvoir 1966: 80, 81)

Example (59) has been taken from the play Les Violons parfois ‘The Violins Sometimes’ by Sagan (1962). It presents a question with the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause, introduced by the direct word order in the main clause, combined with a raising intonation. In this example, Leopold asks for Charlotte’s opinion regarding whether he has to tidy up his room immediately. Although Leopold knows that Charlotte wants him to do it without delay, he would like to wait a moment and to listen to the music. On the one hand, Charlotte, the subject of the main clause, is attributed the meaning In Focus because she manages all the affairs and her word carries weight in the house. On the other hand, Leopold speaks


about his duty in the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause, subtly implying that he might delay the tidying up of his room. (59) Charlotte : Avez-vous rangé votre chambre ? Celie est vieille, non, pour faire un lit ? Ou frotter un parquet. Vous devriez le faire. […] Léopold : Bon, bon. Je… Vous pensez que je doive (S) y aller maintenant ? La musique est si jolie… (Sagan 1962 : 62, 63) ‘Charlotte: Have you tidied up your room? Celie is too old to make your bed, isn’t she? Or to polish the parquet. You should do it. […] Leopold: all right, all right! I … Do you think that I should (S) [doive] go there just now? The music is so nice…’

Examples (54)–(59) show how the encoder uses the Indicative and the Subjunctive with the formal position of the subject in interrogative sentences to emphasize or deemphasize, respectively, his/her commitment to an occurrence. Questions with the direct (Subject-Verb) word order are used to emphasize the encoder’s commitment to the way the subject perceives an occurrence. Questions with the inverted or indirect (Verb-Subject) word order are used to deemphasize the encoder’s commitment. One would expect, therefore, that the indirect word order in the main clause of interrogative sentences would favor the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause, whereas the direct word order would favor the Indicative. The minimal pair of examples (52)–(53) given below illustrates this use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in interrogative clauses following the direct or the indirect word order in the main clause. (52) Tu crois qu’il dort (I) ? ‘You think he is (I) sleeping [dort], don’t you?’ (53) Crois-tu qu’il dorme (S) ? ‘Do you think he may (S) be sleeping [dorme]?’

From this, I predict the following correlation: Prediction 3: The indirect word order in the main clause of interrogative sentences favors the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause more than the direct word order does.

When counting, I have tried to cancel out the influence of linguistic environments that are argued to require the Subjunctive or the Indicative in the subordinate clause. I have excluded sentences with the Subjunctive following either volitive verbs (e.g., falloir ‘to have to’, vouloir ‘to want’) or emotional and appreciative verbs and expressions (e.g., être étonné ‘to be surprised’, regretter ‘to regret’). As previously stated, Nordahl’s count (1969: 74) shows the very high rate of the Sub-


Table 4. Correlation of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative in the subordinate clause with the indirect vs. the direct word order in the main clause Indicative Subjunctive Subjunctive (%) OR

Indirect 22 19

Direct 74 0 100% : 0% 100% correlation

junctive in these linguistic environments (98.6% for volitive verbs and 89.9% for emotional and appreciative verbs and expressions). The rate becomes even higher, if one rules out the subordinate clauses, introduced by the prepositional expressions de ce que and à ce que (99.3% for volitive verbs and 98.8% for emotional and appreciative verbs and expressions). I have also ruled out sentences with the Indicative following verbs such as avertir ‘to inform’, avouer ‘to admit, to confess’, constater ‘to note’, oublier ‘to forget’, savoir ‘to know’. These verbs co-occur with the Indicative regularly enough to speak about grammatical constraints. Because of this neutralization, the number of occurrences has considerably decreased. Therefore, I have calculated all the occurrences of both moods in the subordinate clauses, introduced by the indirect and the direct word order, as if they were used in a single text. The results of the count for Prediction 3 are presented in Table 4. The data in Table 4 are based on a sample of more than hundred instances of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause with the indirect and the direct word order in the main clause. In the texts selected for the quantitative analysis, I have found no occurrences of the Subjunctive in questions with the direct word order. In other words, the data in Table 4 reveal a 100% correlation between the Subjunctive and the indirect word order, which strongly supports my prediction.

chapter 6

Occurrence System and subjective comment

It is often claimed that the Indicative provides objective information, expresses facts, whereas the Subjunctive conveys subjective nuances (cf. Le Bidois 1968a, b; Nølke 1993, 2001; Van der Molen 1923). One should remember, however, that both moods only represent the reality that the encoder wants to communicate to the decoder. Moreover, the use of the Subjunctive for subjective comment, i.e. with emotional and appreciative expressions, is a somewhat new acquisition of French. It is observed from about the fifteenth century, but prevalent only in Modern and Contemporary French. As I subsequently show, in Old French, the focus of subjective comment was on the factual outcome of an occurrence, emphasized with the Indicative. I explain the use of the Indicative to express facts and the use of the Subjunctive to comment on an occurrence, based on their invariant meanings. The invariant meaning Occurrence of the Indicative allows the encoder to convince the decoder of the outcome of an occurrence and to provide its relatively objective description. The subjective interpretation of an occurrence implies the consideration of its possible alternative outcome. The encoder’s comments result from the comparison between the actual outcome of an occurrence and what might be its alternative. Therefore, the invariant meaning Alternative to Occurrence of the Subjunctive is more appropriate for subjective comments. Leeman-Bouix (1994) states on the matter as follows: Mais pour porter ce jugement [Je me réjouis que tu me comprennes], et choisir entre la satisfaction et le mécontentement ou la déception, encore faut-il comparer, mentalement, l’effet que me fait la constatation que tu ne me comprends pas. Autrement dit, pour pouvoir affirmer Je me réjouis, il faut prendre en compte les deux possibilités [alternative!]: ce qui me permet de définir mon sentiment si tu me comprends, c’est de peser celui que m’aurait causé ton incompréhension. Le subjonctif correspond donc bien ici, malgré les apparences, à la définition que l’on s’est donnée : le fait que tu me comprennes est mentalement mis en parallèle avec le fait que tu ne me comprennes pas, et c’est la comparaison de l’effet produit sur moi des deux comportements qui me permet de dire Je me réjouis que tu me comprennes (ou aussi bien Je suis désolé que tu ne me comprennes pas). (LeemanBouix 1994 : 91)


‘But in order to make the judgment I’m delighted that you understand me and to choose between satisfaction and dissatisfaction or disappointment, it is necessary to compare what your misunderstanding means to me. In other words, in order to affirm I am delighted, it is necessary to take into account both possibilities. What allows me to define my feeling when you understand me is the comparison with the feeling that would mean your misunderstanding to me. In spite of appearances, the Subjunctive fits in with our definition here. The fact that you understand me is compared with the fact that you do not understand me. The comparison of the effect that both attitudes produce on me allows me to say I am delighted that you understand me (or as well I am sorry that you do not understand me).’

Example (60) illustrates the difference between the relatively objective presentation of an occurrence with the Indicative and subjective comment on it with the Subjunctive. This example has been taken from La symphonie pastorale by Gide (1963) [1925] that represents the diary of a pastor who educates a feeble-minded blind girl. In this example, a doctor, the pastor’s friend, comments on the girl’s state, implying with the Subjunctive that she should not be so retarded, being only blind. The pastor uses the Indicative to explain the girl’s weak-mindedness by the objective factors. (60) Il s’intéressa beaucoup à ce que je lui dis de l’état de Gertrude, s’étonna grandement d’abord de ce qu’elle fût (S) restée à ce point arriérée, n’étant somme toute qu’aveugle; mais je lui expliquai qu’à son infirmité s’ajoutait (I) la surdité de la vieille qui seule jusqu’alors avait pris soin d’elle, et qui ne lui parlait jamais […] (Gide 1963 [1925] : 32) ‘He was very much interested by what I told him of Gertrude’s condition and was at first greatly astonished she should (S) be [fût] so backward, considering her only infirmity was blindness; but I explained that in addition to this she had (I) had [s’ajoutait] to suffer from the deafness of the old woman who was her sole guardian and who never spoke to her […]’ (Gide 1949: 120)

6.1 Explicit comments An occurrence can be commented on explicitly and implicitly. Explicit comments are introduced by the following: a. Emotive verbs: e.g., apprécier ‘to appreciate’, déplorer ‘to deplore’, détester ‘to hate, to detest’, s’étonner ‘to be amazed, to wonder’, préférer ‘to prefer’, regretter ‘to regret, to be sorry’, se réjouir ‘to be delighted’.

Chapter 6. Occurrence System and subjective comment 131

b. Impersonal emotive expressions: e.g., comment se fait-il que ‘how is it that’, il est étonnant que ‘it is surprising that’, il est étrange que ‘it is amazing that’, il est incroyable que ‘it is strange that’, il est regrettable que ‘it is regrettable that’. c. Personal emotive expressions: e.g., être content que ‘to be glad, happy that’, être désolé que ‘to be sorry that’, être étonné que ‘to be surprised that’, être triste que ‘to be sad that’, n’en revenir pas que ‘cannot get over that’. Example (61) is an instance of an explicit comment on an occurrence with the emotive expression être content ‘to be glad, happy’. This example has been taken from Le Petit Prince by Saint-Exupery (1946). In this passage, the little prince is happy that the narrator agrees with the lesson of his fox that “what is essential is invisible to the eye”. Since the narrator is an adult, the prince takes into account the alternative that the idea of the fox might be beyond him. Therefore, this alternative is emphasized with the Subjunctive in example (61). (61) Je suis content, dit-il, que tu sois (S) d’accord avec mon renard. (Saint-Exupéry 1946 : 78) ‘“I am glad,” he said, “that you agree (S) [sois] with my fox.”’ (Saint-Exupéry 1943: 76)

The use of the Indicative in this linguistic context is irregular. This mood can appear to comment on the inevitable result of an occurrence, as in example (62), taken from L’île ‘The Island’ by Merle (1962). In this example, the assembly discusses the distribution of the Tahitian women among the sailors. The sailors’ leader Mac Leod knows that one sailor will not agree with the distribution because they both desire the same woman. Since Mac Leod has a majority in the assembly, the result of the vote is clear to him and, therefore, appears in the Indicative. (62) Et y aura p’têtre un matelot qui sera pas bien content qu’le vent a (I) pas soufflé dans ses voiles. Dans c’cas, j’dis : fils, la loi, c’est la loi. (Merle 1962 : 206) ‘And, perhaps, there will be a sailor who won’t be very happy that the wind hasn’t (I) blown [a soufflé] in his sails. In that case, I’ll say: son, the law is the law.’

The prepositional expression de ce que following emotive verbs and expressions represents particular difficulties (cf. Nordahl 1969: 97) for the understanding of the choice of mood in the subordinate clause. Both the Subjunctive and the Indicative appear in subordinate clauses after this expression. Compare the minimal pair of examples (63)–(64): (63) Je suis heureux que nous soyons (S)/(?) sommes (I) de même avis. ‘I’m glad that we are (S)/(?)(I) [soyons/(?) sommes] of the same opinion.’


(64) Je suis heureux de ce que nous soyons (S)/sommes (I) de même avis. ‘I’m glad that we are (S)/(I) [soyons/sommes] of the same opinion.’

To say that one mood is preferred over the other in this linguistic context due to grammatical constraints or to niceties of expression (cf. Hunnius 1976: 22–26) is not an explanation. Explanations, provided by sentence-oriented grammar, can be summarized in the following way: 1. The lexical explanation: the demonstrative pronoun ce ‘this’ in the expression de ce que is claimed to neutralize the subjectivity of governing emotive verbs and expressions and to actualize facts. This allows the speaker to use the Indicative and the Subjunctive (cf. De Boer 1947: 273–274; Wagner & Pinchon 1962: 559). I could argue that the use of ce does not explain the encoder’s choice of mood because: a. The subordinate clause can be introduced by the expression à ce que, as in example (68) below. Despite the use of ce, this expression strongly favors the Subjunctive and not the Indicative. b. The expression de ce que following the same emotive verb or expression can introduce either the Subjunctive or the Indicative in the subordinate clause, as in the set of examples (66)–(67) below. c. According to the data, provided by Nordahl (1969: 100–101), the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause, introduced by de ce que, is even more frequent than the Indicative. 2. The government and binding explanation: the preposition de of the expression de ce que is claimed to point out the origin of an occurrence. In generative terms, it represents a lexical head of a maximal projection that governs the subordinate clause with the feature [+real] (cf. Lalaire 1998: 44–53). Lalaire’s opinion is that this function of the preposition de accounts for the preferred use of the Indicative in the subordinate clause, introduced by de ce que. In his opinion, the Subjunctive follows de ce que by analogy with sentences where emotive verbs and expressions govern the subordinate clause directly, i.e. without de and ce. In this case, de represents an operator of a passive transformation by analogy with the passive voice where this preposition introduces the agent following emotive verbs: e.g., il est détesté de ses adversaires ‘he is hated by his opponents’. Lalaire’s point of view is based on the generative principle of government and is, therefore, problematic because:


a. There is not a one-to-one connection between form and function. The same function can be performed by different forms, and forms that perform the same function are used differently in language. For example, the agent in a passive sentence can also be introduced by the preposition par, as in il est détesté par ses adversaires ‘he is hated by his opponents’. However, par in the expression par ce que, as in example (65), does not govern the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause. (65) Par ce que je sais (I) de l’affaire, je l’estime avantageuse. (cit. in Mauger 1968 : 326) ‘From what I know (I) [sais] about the matter, I consider it profitable.’

b. As previously stated, (cf. Nordahl 1969: 100–101) the Indicative, expected according to Lalaire after the expression de ce que, is less frequent than the Subjunctive. I contend that the choice of one mood over the other in clauses, introduced by the expressions de ce que and à ce que, is motivated by the invariant meanings of both moods in correlation with the meanings of the prepositions de and à. Soutet (2000) claims the following about the role of the prepositions de and à in the encoder’s choice of mood: En réalité, on l’aura noté, la capacité actualisante de ce (ouvrant donc la possibilité d’un indicatif dans la conjonctive) est, elle-même, conditionnée dans ces contextes par la nature de la préposition qui précède. Il paraît indiscutable que, tandis que la préposition à, […] avec un sens de but ou d’intention, bloque de ce fait même la capacité actualisante de ce et l’empêche de rééquilibrer le contenu virtualisant de la commande verbale, à l’inverse, la préposition de, […] avec un sens d’origine ou de cause agissante, amorce une réorientation actualisante capable d’inverser l’orientation virtualisante du verbe – réorientation que vient précisément soutenir le morphème ce. (Soutet 2000 : 72) ‘Actually, it has been noticed, the actualizing capability of ce (which allows one to use the Indicative in the subordinate clause) is conditioned in these contexts by the nature of the precedent preposition. It seems unquestionable that the preposition à, […] meaning purpose or intention, blocks the actualizing capability of ce and disturbs the equilibrium of the virtual content of the modal control. On the contrary, the preposition de, […] meaning origin or effective cause, allows for actualizing reorientation, capable to change the virtual orientation of the verb, i.e. reorientation that strengthens the morpheme ce.’

I postulate that the invariant meaning of the preposition de is Circumstance of Origin. This meaning accounts for “all the various spatio-temporal-existential


messages,28 both literal and metaphoric, and the various syntactic and pragmatic functions such a word may obtain” (Tobin 1990: 61). It accounts as well for the correlation of the preposition de both with the Indicative and with the Subjunctive following the expression de ce que. This meaning is more appropriate for factual occurrences that are at the origin of the encoder’s subjective or relatively objective interpretation. The expression de ce que is followed by the Subjunctive when the encoder intends to comment on an occurrence by implying its alternative. It is followed by the Indicative when the encoder’s intent is to provide the relatively objective description of an occurrence. I postulate that the preposition à invariably means Circumstance of Localization or Destination and that the expression à ce que introduces a circumstance of destination. This meaning is more appropriate for intended occurrences with an uncertain outcome, which explains the favoring of the Subjunctive in this linguistic environment. This claim is illustrated by the set of examples (66)–(68). Example (66) has been taken from the novel La Voie royale ‘The Royal Way’ by Malraux (1968) [1930]. It presents the use of the Subjunctive after the adjective humilié ‘humiliated’, followed by the expression de ce que, to imply an alternative to an occurrence. In this example, the archeologist Claude Vannec and the adventurer Perken speak about the adventurer Grabot who is known for his masochistic pleasures. If Vannec were Grabot, he would prefer that nobody know about his sexual relations. Therefore, in his question, he emphasizes this alternative with the Subjunctive. (66) – Je vous ai parlé d’un homme qui se faisait attacher, nu, par des femmes, à Bangkok… C’était lui. Ce n’est pas tellement plus absurde que de prétendre coucher et vivre – et vivre – avec une autre créature humaine… Mais lui en est atrocement humilié… – De ce qu’on le sache (S) ? (Malraux 1968 : 114) ‘“I talked to you about a man who got women to tie him up naked in Bangkok. That was him. This is as absurd as to pretend to sleep and to live – to live – with another human creature. But he is horribly humiliated by that …” “That one knows (S) [sache] about it?”’

28. The term of a spatio-temporal-existential cline is used to deal with “a universal semantic development of words […] going from the most concrete spatial messages to the more abstract temporal to the most abstract existential kinds of messages: (a) existence in space or in place, (b) existence in time, (c) abstract existence” (Tobin 1990: 61). For the studies of the spatiotemporal-existential cline with relation to different parts of speech, see Aphek & Tobin (1988), García, van Putte & Tobin (1987), Tobin (1982, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1995), Tobin & Aphek (1985, 1989).


Example (67) has been taken from the novel Aurélien by Aragon (1972). It presents the Indicative, introduced by the same adjective humilié ‘humiliated’ as in the above example, followed by the expression de ce que. In this example, Aurelien feels humiliated that he cannot conquer a young woman, whom he loves passionately. The wider context shows that Aurelien reflects upon the futility of his attempts to dominate her rather than considering an alternative of what he might have done in order to conquer her. The absence of a tangible result is also a result, expressed, therefore, by the Indicative in example (67). (67) Toutes les fois qu’elle le quitte, Aurélien se demande ce qui lui arrive, et comment il est possible qu’il agisse avec une naïveté semblable. Il est à chaque fois humilié dans son stupide orgueil d’homme, de ce qu’il n’a (I) pas fait de cette femme sa chose. Elle lui fuit entre les doigts. Elle le déconcerte. […] Il y a des moments qu’il la croit déjà dans ses bras, qu’il la sent mieux que vaincue […]. Il se trouve pourtant, plus tard, que ces moments se sont évanouis, qu’il n’a même pas embrassé un fantôme, et que tous deux sont là, au bord du gouffre […] (Aragon 1972 : 318–319) ‘Every time she left him alone, Aurélien wondered what was happening to him and how it was possible that he should behave so naïvely. Every time she left him, he felt humbled in his obstinate masculine pride, because he had (I) not made [a fait] this woman his own. She slipped between his fingers. She left him standing. […] There were moments when he thought he had her in his arms, feeling her quite helpless and subject to him […]. Yet afterwards, when these moments had passed, he realised that it was not even a ghost he had held in his arms, and that both of them were still here on the brink of that abyss […]’ (Aragon 1946: 323)

As previously stated, the expression de ce que introduces both the Subjunctive and the Indicative, whereas the expression à ce que is strongly favored for the Subjunctive. Example (68), taken from Le Petit Prince by Saint-Exupery (1946), illustrates the use of the Subjunctive following the expression à ce que. In this example, the king wants the little prince to respect him. The king considers the alternative that the little prince might disobey his orders just as he did before, refusing to yawn again. This alternative is expressed by the Subjunctive in example (68). (68) Car le roi tenait essentiellement à ce que son autorité fût (S) respectée. Il ne tolérait pas la désobéissance. (Saint-Exupéry 1946 : 37) ‘For what the king fundamentally insisted upon was that his authority should (S) [fût] be respected. He tolerated no disobedience.’ (Saint-Exupery 1943: 36–37)


Examples (61)–(68) show that the encoder uses emotive verbs and expressions not only to comment on an occurrence with the Subjunctive by implying its alternative, but also, though much more rarely, to appreciate the very outcome of an occurrence with the Indicative.

6.2 Implicit comments Messages with explicit comments show the encoder’s attitude towards an occurrence by emotive verbs and expressions, whereas messages with implicit comments do not communicate the encoder’s attitude overtly. The decoder is unaware of how the encoder appreciates an occurrence, but infers that it is perceived as a fact. Therefore, the Indicative is a default option in these messages. The Subjunctive, implying an alternative, emphasizes a departure from the norm that deserves the decoder’s attention. The most explicit way to reorient the decoder’s attention to an alternative without expressing the encoder’s attitude is to place an occurrence at the beginning of the sentence. Sentence-initial position “acts as a point of ‘natural discourse focus’” (Kirsner 1989: 165). The same holds for sentence-initial position of subordinate clauses that precede the main clause, as in example (69). This example has been taken from the short story Ariane, ma sœur ‘Harpies on the Shore’ by Maurois (1946). The story deals with two women, the wife and the ex-wife of the well-known writer Jerome Vence, each of whom wants to make money out of the publication of his biography. In this passage, Jerome’s former wife shows that she was aware of the liaison of her female rival with Jerome, which she might deny. Therefore, the ex-wife emphasizes this alternative with the Subjunctive in sentence-initial position. (69) En ce qui vous concerne, je ne serai certes pas moins généreuse que vous n’avez vous-même le désir de l’être à mon égard. Pourquoi nous déchirer l’une l’autre ? Que vous ayez (S) été la maîtresse de Jérôme avant votre mariage, les lettres que j’ai entre les mains le prouvent; je me garderai de les citer. (Maurois 1946 : 35) ‘Towards you I shall be no less kindly than you have generously proposed to be towards me. Why should we not be united? From letters which I have before me it is clear that you were (S) [ayez été] [Jerome’s] mistress before becoming his wife, but I shall not quote them.’ (Maurois 1949: 309–310)

The use of the Indicative in sentence-initial position is much more irregular. It focuses the decoder’s attention on a fact rather than implies an alternative to an occurrence. Example (70) illustrates this point. This example has been taken from


a review article by Šabršula (1974) who criticizes Boysen’s hierarchy of factors that allegedly govern the Subjunctive (cf. Boysen 1971). According to Boysen, derivative prefixes (Boysen’s dérivatif) are hierarchically superior to other factors such as, for example, the root of the governing verb (Boysen’s racine). In Šabršula’s opinion, the influence of the derivative prefixes has been overestimated, which Boysen indirectly acknowledges in the conclusion of his book. Since, basically, they do not disagree on this point, the encoder’s opinion appears in the Indicative. (70) Il nous semble, toutefois, que le fait de situer le « dérivatif » seul (à l’exclusion de la « racine ») au sommet de la hiérarchie est en contradiction avec le principe de la fréquence, défendu, par le même auteur. Que l’influence du dérivatif est (I) rare, l’auteur le reconnaît dans sa conclusion, p. 173 (2.2). (Šabršula 1974 : 151) ‘It seems to us, nevertheless, that the fact of placing of the “derivative” only (without the “root”) at the top of the hierarchy contradicts the principle of frequency, supported by the same author. The fact that the influence of the “derivative” is (I) [est] weak is recognized by the author in the conclusion, p. 173 (2.2).’

Compare this example with example (45) of the irregular use of the Subjunctive after il nous semble que ‘it seems to us that’, found in the same article (!). The Subjunctive appears in example (45) when Šabršula expresses a different (alternative) point of view. In example (70), Šabršula refers to Boysen’s conclusion in support of his argument against Boysen’s derivative prefixes as a deciding factor in the choice of mood. Sentence-initial position of the subordinate clause draws the decoder’s attention to the Šabršula’s opinion as being supported by Boysen. (45) […] (il nous semble qu’il ne soit (S) pas avantageux de séparer le dérivatif et le flexif, surtout dans une étude qui veut tenir compte de la fréquence; la hiérarchisation de l’auteur est arbitraire). (Šabršula 1974 : 153) ‘[…] (It seems to us that it is (S) [soit] worthless to separate the derivative prefixes from the inflected categories, especially in a study that wants to take into account the frequency; the hierarchy of the author is arbitrary).’

Another way to reorient the decoder’s attention to a departure from the norm is to use the Subjunctive for factual occurrences, following the verb comprendre ‘to understand’, the expression le fait que ‘the fact that’ or the conjunction après que ‘after’. For sentence-oriented grammar, the least problematic is the alternation of mood after the verb comprendre. One might argue that this alternation is motivated by the different meanings of the verb. It is claimed (cf. Soutet 2000: 62) that the Indicative follows comprendre meaning ‘to realize’, and the Subjunctive is used


after comprendre when it means ‘to appreciate’. As previously pointed out, I reject the explanation, based on different meanings of a form, in favor of a unified explanation for the appearance of a linguistic sign, based on its invariant meaning. Consider (Huot 1986) who states the following on the matter: Je ne pense pas d’ailleurs que la solution qui consiste […] à distinguer un double sens (fort et faible) pour une même unité lexicale soit la façon la plus satisfaisante d’en expliquer les différences d’interprétation selon les contextes d’emploi. Il me semble plus juste de poser qu’un verbe donné à (sic) un sens fondamental unique, dont les modulations – secondaires – dépendent de conditions syntaxiques précises, qui restent à décrire et à expliquer. (Huot 1986 : 83–84, note 2) ‘I do not think, however, that the solution which consists […] in differentiating a double meaning (strong and weak) for the same lexical unit might be the most satisfactory way of explaining the difference in interpretation depending on the contexts of use. It seems more exact to me to postulate that a given verb has a unique fundamental meaning, whose – secondary – variation depends on specific syntactic conditions that have to be described and explained.’

I postulate the invariant meaning of comprendre as X Takes/Includes Y as an Integral Part. I claim that this meaning can be applied to all the specific messages with this verb (‘to comprise’, ‘to understand’, ‘to appreciate’) that can be inferred in different contexts. In particular, this claim is illustrated by the set of examples (71)–(72). Example (71), taken from L’île ‘The Island’ by Merle (1962), presents the verb comprendre introducing a fact, expressed by the Indicative. In this example, the first officer Mason rejects any alternative to the order and to the subordination that are the norm (the default option) on the ship. Therefore, he is making this statement in the Indicative. (71) Mac Leod, je voudrais que vous compreniez qu’il faut (I) de l’ordre et que c’est (I) moi qui commande (I) à bord. (Merle 1962 : 104) ‘Mac Leod, I would like you to understand that the order is (I) needed [faut] and that I command (I) [commande] aboard.’

Example (72) has been taken from Rhinocéros by Ionesco (1959). This example presents the use of the Subjunctive after the verb comprendre, implying an alternative. In this passage, Dudard and Berenger are discussing Berenger’s shock at a sudden transformation of his friend into a rhinoceros. Though Dudard understands Berenger’s shock, he sees no reason to dramatize this event and to exaggerate its danger. This alternative is emphasized, therefore, with the Subjunctive.


(72) Dudard : – Je comprends que vous ayez (S) été choqué. (Ionesco 1959 : 175) ‘Dudard: I realize it must (S) have been [ayez été] a shock to you.’ (Ionesco 1960: 74)

Following sentence-oriented grammar, it is more difficult to explain the alternation of mood after the expression le fait que ‘the fact that’. The word ‘fact’ refers to “more empirical, more determined” occurrences that “have more positive chances of existence” (Hewson 1997: 123). Therefore, one would expect the Indicative after le fait que. However, according to the data, provided by Nordahl (1969: 245), the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause, introduced by le fait que, is even more frequent than the Indicative (66.7% versus 33.3%). Grevisse (2001: 1616) believes that the Indicative and the Subjunctive are used after le fait que without any difference in their meanings. It is argued (cf. Grevisse ibid; Harmer 1954: 216; Nordahl 1969: 245–246) that the Subjunctive is used in these subordinate clauses because they are similar to those, standing in sentence-initial position, as in example (69) above. (69) […] Que vous ayez (S) été la maîtresse de Jérôme avant votre mariage, les lettres que j’ai entre les mains le prouvent […] (Maurois 1946 : 35) ‘[…] From letters which I have before me it is clear that you were (S) [ayez été] [Jerome’s] mistress before becoming his wife […]’ (Maurois 1949: 309– 310)

However, this explanation is unconvincing. The Subjunctive can follow le fait que both in the beginning and in the middle of the sentence, as in example (73), collected by Grevisse (2001). (73) Il n’attache pas une grande importance au fait que Napoléon ait (S) laissé une France mutilée. (Malraux, Chênes qu’on abat…, p. 105 cit. in Grevisse 2001 : 1616) ‘He does not attach a great importance to the fact that Napoleon has (S) left [ait laissé] mutilated France’.

I follow, in a certain sense, the Guillaumean sign-oriented point of view, presented by Hewson (1997). He states that the word fait ‘fact’ in the expression le fait que has two contextual meanings: a fact as an ‘empirical experience’ and a fact as an ‘abstracted experience’. The time image is the invariant meaning for Hewson. Therefore, a fact, considered an empirical experience, justifies the use of the Indicative that attributes an occurrence of the subordinate clause to concrete (or determinate) time. In other words, an empirically experienced occurrence is related to the realm of the probable or the certain. On the other hand, a fact, considered to be an abstracted experience, justifies the use of the Subjunctive that attributes


an occurrence of the subordinate clause to abstract (or indeterminate) time. In other words, an abstractedly experienced occurrence is related to the realm of the possible or the potential. My opinion is that the expression le fait que can either emphasize the reality of an occurrence or imply a departure of an occurrence from the encoder’s expectation. The Indicative is used in the former situational context, and the Subjunctive is used in the latter. Examples (74)–(75), taken from the French newspaper Libération (30–31.10.99), illustrate this point. Example (74) presents the use of the Indicative after le fait que to emphasize the reality of an occurrence. In this example, the vice-president of the European Committee objects to a journalist of Libération concerning the so-called unfair principle of the distribution of posts in the EC. As stated by the journalist, “less developed” countries do not get high positions in the EC. The irony of this situation is that the vice-president uses the Indicative and confirms, thereby, this fact, blaming only the journalist’s attitude to it. (74) Je trouve donc surprenante votre affirmation concernant le fait qu’aucun de ces services n’est (I) « essentiel ». (Libération, 30–31.10.99, p. 7) ‘I find surprising your affirmation concerning the fact that none of these positions are (I) [est] “essential”.’

Example (75) presents the use of the Subjunctive after le fait que to imply an alternative to the fact. French scientists support the embargo on British beef and believe that the measures, undertaken by Great Britain, do not suffice to protect the people. Therefore, their alternative position is implied by the Subjunctive in example (75). (75) Le fait que le « comité ad hoc ESB » – comprenant, lui, des spécialistes des maladies prions – n’ait (S) pas réussi à parvenir à un accord unanime, lundi, n’a pas troublé outre mesure le CSD. (Libération, 30–31.10.99, p. 8) ‘The fact that the “ad hoc BSE committee” – including specialists in prion disease – had (S) not succeed [ait réussi] in reaching a unanimous agreement on Monday, did not embarrass the Scientific Director Committee at all.’

The use of mood, following the conjunction après que ‘after’, deserves particular attention. Until the second third of the 20th century, this conjunction was followed mainly by the Indicative. However, since the fifties, it has been noticed that the Indicative and the Subjunctive are used equally. Some explanations of the alternation of mood after après que can be summarized in the following way: 1. The explanation by analogy: this alternation is explained by analogy with the conjunction avant que ‘before’ implying anticipation:


a. Phonological and prosodic analogy: Winters (1989: 720) considers the analogy as a motivating factor for the Subjunctive use because “the phonological and prosodic shape of après and avant are similar in that they are both disyllabic words starting with /a/ and a labial element”. b. Morphological analogy: Bonnard (1977) extends the analogy between après and avant to the whole series of conjunctions that govern the Subjunctive, except for après que. Just as après que, these conjunctions are formed by a preposition + que and this preposition can be followed by the infinitive, as the preposition après. For example: avant–avant que ‘before’, à moins de–à moins que ‘unless’, sans–sans que ‘without’, pour–pour que ‘for; in order that’. Harmer (1954: 196–197) and Winters (1989: 720) extend this analogy to the “set of expressions of relative chronology” such as avant que ‘before’ and jusqu’à ce que ‘until’ that take the Subjunctive, apart from après que. c. Syntactic analogy: according to Lalaire (1998: 62–63), both après que and avant que imply the discrepancy between two processes: the processes of the matrix and the subordinate clauses. The discrepancy consists in that the process of the matrix has become the reality, while the process of the subordinate clause remains potential. Leeman-Bouix (1994: 67–68) compares the lexical environments of the two conjunctions. According to her opinion, both après que and avant que can be used with adverbs of quantity (bien/peu avant/après que ‘long/shortly before/after, later’) or adverbs of time (longtemps/un moment/deux jours avant/après que ‘long/some time/two days before/after, later’). However, the analogy between both conjunctions does not explain why après que was assimilated to the formula avant que + Subjunctive, and not vice versa, especially because there are many other temporal conjunctions (e.g., depuis que ‘since’, dès que ‘as soon as’, lorsque ‘when’), followed by the Indicative. Even if one accepts the analogy, it is not clear why après que is followed both by the Indicative and by the Subjunctive, whereas avant que + Indicative is an exception. 2. The functional explanation: Wunderli (1976: 140) enumerates different contextual nuances that the Subjunctive can convey in the subordinate clause, introduced by après que (e.g., adversative, concessive, causal, conditional nuances). However, this interpretation merely represents a list of different functions of the Subjunctive, but does not account for the encoder’s choice of one mood over the other.


3. The morphological explanation: (cf. Soutet 2000: 102) the use of the Subjunctive is sometimes accounted for by its morphological simplicity in comparison with the highly differentiated forms of the Indicative, especially in complex tenses. Compare après qu’il est/sera/serait/fut/était/a été/aura été/aurait été/eut été/avait été (I) arrivé ‘after he has arrived/will arrive/would arrive/arrived/had arrived/has arrived/will have arrived/would have arrived/had (I) arrived’ versus après qu’il soit/ ait été/fût/eût été (S) arrivé ‘after he might arrive/have (S) arrived’. In addition, one must take into consideration that the last three forms après qu’il ait été/fût/eût été (S) arrivé ‘after he might have (S) arrived’ are infrequent in Contemporary French. French has other temporal conjunctions such as dès que ‘as soon as’, quand or lorsque ‘when’ that can also be followed by complex tenses. However, the Subjunctive does not appear after these conjunctions to achieve morphological simplicity. 4. The aspectual explanation (close to the morphological explanation): Wilmet (1976) views the Subjunctive, following après que, as the expression of a simple aspectual variation. According to Wilmet (ibid: 148), one uses the Subjunctive with après que because of the simplicity of this mood. It has only four forms, or two aspectual pairs, in opposition to multiple complex forms of the Indicative. At the same time, Wilmet recognizes (ibid: 148–149) that in speech or among journalists, it is common to use simple forms even with après que. Moreover, if this explanation were right, the Indicative and the Subjunctive would not have particular complex tenses such as passé surcomposé ‘complex present perfect’ that emphasizes the result. These tenses are formed by the perfect tenses (e.g., passé composé), followed by the past participles: « Quand vous m’avez eu chassé, j’ai erré. » (Claudel, Tête d’Or, cit. in Mauger 1968: 240) – ‘When you have driven me away, I began wandering’. 5. The Guillaumean sign-oriented approach: Guillaume (1970: 42–43) ascribes avant que to conjunctions that introduce possible events, expressed by the Subjunctive, and après que to actualizing conjunctions that introduce the Indicative. This approach was extended to explain the alternation of mood after après que (cf. Canut & Ledegen 1998; Dolbec & Le Flem 1981; Stefanini 1992). Following Guillaume, Stefanini (ibid: 21–22, 33–34) differentiates between chronologie réelle and chronologie de raison. The former means the real and concrete sequence of events, expressed by the Indicative, whereas the latter means the abstract and ideal sequence, expressed by the Subjunctive. Stefanini tries to integrate the diverse uses of avant and après into a single “intuition” (ibid: 25), valid both for their temporal and spatial contextual


meanings. He denies the analogy between avant and après because of their incomplete symmetry. The difference entails not only that avant que introduces posterior events, and après que introduces anterior ones, but, as believed by Stefanini, that avant que implies perspective discordance between events. An event is not yet a fact when the principal event is taking place, though it might really become a fact after. Après que deals with a perspective of an event that happens first in the sequence and through which another event is represented as a reality. This creates a sequence of causes between events. Therefore, après que can refer both to chronologie réelle and to chronologie de raison: Mais celui [le rôle] que joue le subjonctif avec « après que » est bien différent de celui qu’il remplit avec « avant que ». Ici, il indique que le procès-repère envisagé à travers « avant que » ne peut atteindre la ligne de réalité, le sens même d’avant excluant radicalement sa réalisation. Là, il exprime un procès dont la réalité ne peut faire aucun doute, dont la réalisation est garantie par « après que », mais il permet de le considérer dans le temps in fieri, dans le temps qui est en train de se faire pour aboutir au temps in esse où se déroule (s’est déroulé ou se déroulera) le procès principal. (Stefanini 1992 : 30) ‘But the role that the Subjunctive plays with “après que” differs from the role that it plays with “avant que”. Here, it points out that an event-reference, envisaged through “avant que”, cannot achieve the reality because the meaning of “avant” radically excludes its realization. There, it expresses an event whose reality cannot be doubted, whose realization is guaranteed by “après que”. However, this event may be considered in time in fieri, in the time that is being formed to achieve the time in esse where the main event takes place (took place or will take place).’

My point of view is, in a certain sense, close to that of Stefanini, especially in his attempts to find the invariance in the diversity of uses. What avant que and après que have in common is that they do not indicate the precise moment of an occurrence, unlike other temporal conjunctions (e.g., dès que ‘as soon as’, lorsque ‘when’, pendant que ‘while’). Both conjunctions imply a gap in the sequence of two occurrences, one of which is posterior or anterior to the other. Avant que implies the uncertain outcome of an occurrence that has not yet taken place. As opposed to it, après que refers to an actual occurrence (or a future occurrence, considered a fact). Therefore, the use of the Indicative or the Subjunctive with this conjunction is similar, in part, to the use of mood with the expression le fait que ‘the fact that’. I argue that après que either presents the sequence of occurrences as facts in the Indicative or emphasizes an alternative with the Subjunctive. The latter implies that a fact in the sequence departs from the encoder’s expectation. Examples (76)–(79) illustrate this claim. Example (76), taken from the official Internet site of the French Senate, deals with the Grand Prix in chess, organized by the Senate in the Luxembourg Gar-


dens. The Indicative is used to present the sequence of occurrences, viewed as facts. (76) Le Sénat a également accueilli Gari Kasparov pour la présentation par FR3 du film qui lui a été consacré et a eu l’honneur de recevoir Vladimir Kramnik pour sa première sortie quelques jours après qu’il eut (I) battu Kasparov et conquis le titre. (http://www.senat.fr/evenement/echec2002.html) ‘The Senate also welcomed Gari Kasparov for the presentation by FR3 of the film, dedicated to him, and had the honor to greet Vladimir Kramnik for his first appearance some days after he had (I) defeated [eut battu] Kasparov and had (I) won [eut conquis] the title.’

Example (77) has been taken from an Internet site that deals with the discovery of CO2, which contributed to the simultaneous discovery of the process of photosynthesis. The Indicative emphasizes the sequence of facts in this example as well. (77) Il [Joseph Priestley] constata aussi que la composition de l’air à l’intérieur d’un récipient en verre changeait après qu’une bougie y a (I) brûlé ou après qu’une souris y a (I) respiré. (http://www.indoorgardens.fr/catalog/product_info. php?products_id=340) ‘Joseph Priestley also noticed that the composition of air inside a glass bulb changed after a candle had (I) burned [a brûlé] there or after a mouse had (I) breathed [a respiré] there.’

Example (78) has been taken from an Internet site that presents a historical background of the Place de la Concorde in Paris. Both the king of France and French revolutionary leaders were guillotined there. Afterwards, the Place de la Concorde got its name as a sign of the national reconciliation. Though après que introduces historical events, the Subjunctive implies the alternative idea that the Reign of Terror, known for mass executions, was a sinister mistake in the French history. (78) Sous l’ancien régime cette place était le lieu de célébrations populaires. Devenu un lieu de sinistre mémoire après qu’y aient (S) été exécutés Louis XVI, Danton, Robespierre et bien d’autres durant la Terreur, c’est en 1795 qu’apparut le nom de Place de la Concorde en signe de réconciliation nationale. (http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/college/moutiers.jeanrostand/LesMatieres/ Matieres/Captures/PARIS/index10.htm) ‘Under the old regime, this square was the place of popular celebrations and became the place of sinister memory after Louis XVI, Danton, Robespierre and many others were (S) put [aient été] to death there during the Reign of Terror. In 1795, the name of the Place de la Concorde appeared as a sign of national reconciliation.’


Example (79), taken from the French edition of Jerusalem Post (01–07.12.99), deals with the procedure of granting Israeli citizenship to new immigrants from the former Soviet Union. The encoder advocates the Jewish nature of Israel. He guesses that not all the applicants will be able to show their loyalty to the principles of the Jewish State. Therefore, the verb in the subordinate clause appears in the Subjunctive to emphasize this alternative. (79) La nationalité israélienne doit être accordée progressivement […] après qu’ils [les postulants] aient (S) fait preuve de loyauté envers l’État d’Israël, comme cela se fait aux États-Unis […] (Jerusalem Post, 01–07.12.99, p. 4) ‘The Israeli nationality has to be granted gradually […] after the applicants show(s) [aient fait] their loyalty to the State of Israel, as it is done in the United States.’

Examples (69)–(79) show that in the sentences where the encoder’s attitude is not communicated, the Subjunctive is used to comment on facts. It implies a comparison between a fact and its alternative. The Indicative is used when the encoder considers such an alternative inappropriate in a given context.

chapter 7

Occurrence System and negation

The encoder uses the Occurrence System to suggest how an occurrence should be interpreted in the given context. The Indicative shows that the encoder just presents an occurrence without considering its alternative. In this sense, affirmation is the most explicit way to present an occurrence positively. The Subjunctive shows that the encoder considers an alternative to an occurrence. Therefore, negation, which implies by definition “what might have happened but didn’t” (Reid 1983 [1979]: 193), is the most explicit way to present an alternative. The set of examples (80)–(81) presents the alternation of mood in the subordinate clause, introduced by affirmation and negation of the verb trouver ‘to find, to think’. Both examples have been taken from the novel Chéri by Colette (1970 [1960]) that tells the story of a love affair between a former courtesan Léa and her young lover Chéri. The context of example (80) is Chéri’s marriage to a 19-yearold girl. Chéri tells Léa about the argument between his mother and his fiancée’s mother, but feels that Léa is not interested in their dispute. Affirmation of trouver in the main clause emphasizes an asserted occurrence, expressed by the Indicative in the subordinate clause in example (80). (80) Elle réfléchissait et Chéri trouva qu’elle manquait (I) d’enthousiasme. (Colette 1970 [1960] : 90) ‘As she began reflecting Chéri felt she lacked (I) [manquait] enthusiasm.’ (Colette 1951: 38)

In example (81), Chéri’s mother finds that he does not look well, though he has just returned from his honeymoon. She implies that this holiday might have done Chéri good. Negation of trouver in the main clause implies an alternative, expressed by the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause in example (81). (81) « Sais-tu bien, mon trésor aimé, que je ne trouve pas que tu aies (S) très bonne mine? (Colette 1970 [1960] : 100) ‘“Do you know, dear heart, that I don’t think you’re (S) looking [aies] very well?”’ (Colette 1951: 50)


I distinguish between explicit negation, introduced by the negative expression ne…pas, as in example (81), and implicit negation, introduced by specific conjunctions, verbs or subordinate clauses.

7.1 Explicit negation Examples (80)–(81) show that negation in the main clause influences the use of the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause. However, this influence on the choice of mood is less than, for example, that of the expressions of explicit comment. Therefore, Nordahl (1969: 191) concludes that mechanisms, which determine the choice of mood after negation, are difficult to understand. Harmer (1954: 208) expresses an extreme point of view arguing that negation is followed “by either the indicative or the subjunctive without any apparent differentiation”. The choice of mood is usually explained by a commitment to an occurrence of the subordinate clause that the encoder assumes or avoids, respectively. For Damourette & Pichon (1968[1936]: 494–499), the choice of mood after negation in the main clause depends upon the subject’s (Damourette & Pichon’s protagoniste) or the speaker’s (Damourette & Pichon’s locuteur) attitude towards the reality of an occurrence. According to Damourette & Pichon, the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause reflects the protagoniste’s point of view and shows that the locuteur avoids making judgments about the reality of an occurrence. The Indicative is used only to reflect the locuteur’s point of view regarding the reality of an occurrence as opposed to the protagoniste’s point of view. According to Guillaume (1970: 45), negation “destroys” the chances of an occurrence to attain its actualization. This means that the chances of an occurrence to take place or not to take place (Hamlet’s to be or not to be) are equal, which is a characteristic of the realm of the possible. Therefore, the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause appears after negation in the main clause. Guillaume states further that negation can also be followed by the Indicative, which means that there are more chances that an occurrence will take place. My opinion is that the encoder uses the Subjunctive after negation in the main clause to imply an alternative to the way an occurrence is being presented or interpreted. The Indicative is used after negation to deny categorically any alternative to the way of presenting or interpreting an occurrence. Therefore, pragmatically, it seems that the Subjunctive attenuates negation, whereas the Indicative makes it stronger. Consider Huot (1986) who writes the following: Pour moi, [Je ne crois pas que Jean soit (S) un bon candidat] signifie plutôt, de façon assez développée : En ce qui concerne la nature de bon candidat de Jean, je ne

Chapter 7. Occurrence System and negation 149

veux pas exprimer une opinion négative catégorique, mais mon opinion personnelle est tout de même négative. En d’autres termes, le tour au subjonctif exprime une réserve plus grande du locuteur vis-à-vis du contenu de la subordonnée dont il ne prend pas en charge la négation tranchée. (Huot 1986 : 89) ‘For me, [I do not think that Jean may (S) be [soit] a good candidate] instead means (more explicitly): In regards to the nature of Jean’s good candidacy, I do not want to give a categorical negative opinion, but my personal opinion is negative nevertheless. In other words, the subjunctive expresses the main speaker’s reservation about what is said in the subordinate clause which he does not commit to deny flatly.’

In particular, this point is illustrated by the set of examples (82)–(85). Examples (82)–(83) present the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative following the negated impersonal expressions of certitude il n’est pas sûr ‘it’s not sure’ and il n’est pas certain ‘it’s not certain’. Example (82) has been taken from La peste ‘The Plague’ by Camus (1947b). In this example, doctor Rieux is trying to encourage his assistant Tarrou who has fallen ill with the plague. Despite all the symptoms, Rieux says that he is not sure of the diagnosis, i.e. he does not rule out an alternative diagnosis. This alternative, therefore, is implied with the Subjunctive in example (82). (82) Rieux allait déjà dans son cabinet. Quand il revint dans la chambre, Tarrou vit qu’il tenait les énormes ampoules de sérum. – Ah, c’est cela, dit-il. – Non, mais c’est une précaution. […] – Et l’isolement, Rieux ? – Il n’est pas du tout sûr que vous ayez (S) la peste. (Camus 1947b : 232) ‘Rieux was going to the surgery as he spoke, and when he returned to the bedroom Tarrou noticed that he had a box of the big ampoules containing the serum. “Ah, so it is that,” he said. “Not necessarily; but we mustn’t run any risks.” […] “But what about isolating me, Rieux?” “It’s by no means certain that you have (S) [ayez] plague.”’ (Camus 1960 [1948]: 254)

In example (83), taken from Caligula by Camus (1958), the writer Cherea tells Cæsonia about Caligula’s tyranny and cruelty. Caligula puts more and more people to death. The Indicative shows to Caesonia that Cherea does not believe they will be able to survive under Caligula.


(83) Cæsonia (D’un autre ton.) Est-ce que tu as jamais su aimer, Cherea ? Cherea, de nouveau lui-même. Nous sommes maintenant trop vieux pour apprendre à le faire, Cæsonia. Et d’ailleurs, il n’est pas sûr que Caligula nous en laissera (I) le temps. (Camus 1958 : 138) ‘Caesonia: [In a changed tone.] Tell me, Cherea. Has love ever meant anything to you? Cherea: [Himself again.] I’m afraid we’re too old now, Caesonia, to learn the art of love-making. And anyhow it’s highly doubtful if Caligula will (I) give [laissera] us time to do so.’ (Camus 1947a: 82)

Examples (84)–(85) present the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative following negated “verba sentiendi et declarandi” (Harmer 1954: 209) such as croire ‘to believe’ and penser ‘to think’. Example (84) has been taken from Le Malentendu ‘The Misunderstanding’ by Camus (1958). In this example, Maria does not understand how the mother and sister of her husband Jan, who returns home after twenty years, have failed to recognize him. She implies with the Subjunctive that the mother and sister should have recognized their son and brother, no matter how he may have changed. (84) Jan, je ne puis croire qu’elles ne t’aient (S) pas reconnu tout à l’heure. Une mère reconnaît toujours son fils. (Camus 1958 : 172) ‘Jan, I can’t believe they failed (S) to recognize [aient reconnu] you just now. A mother’s bound to recognize her son; it’s the least she can do.’ (Camus 1947a: 106)

Example (85) has been taken from the novel Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936). This example deals with a female admirer of the writer Costals who swamps him with love letters. Though Costals always replies non, jamais ‘never’, this girl categorically refuses to believe that he will be able to reject her love. Therefore, she is emphasizing her words with the Indicative. (85) Non, non, non, je ne puis pas croire que vous me refuserez (I) éternellement. (Montherlant 1936 : 173) ‘No, no, no, I cannot believe that you will (I) reject [refuserez] me forever.’

In examples (82)–(85), the encoder uses negation in the main clause to deny the way an occurrence of the subordinate clause is being presented or interpreted. The Subjunctive appears to imply an alternative to an occurrence in the subordinate clause, whereas the Indicative is used to exclude any such alternative. The implication of an alternative (affirmative) counterpart makes negation one of the


basic factors that correlate with the Subjunctive. Consider de Jonge (2001) on this matter:

The most common alternative to a verb is its negated counterpart. Therefore, while considering possible alternatives to the verb under analysis, the verb-negation is always taken into consideration. (de Jonge 2001: 82)

The question remains where negation influences the distribution of mood the most: in the main clause, in the subordinate clause, or in both of them. The data that de Jonge (2004: 213) presents for Spanish show that in the subordinate clause, “there is no difference in distribution of indicative vs. subjunctive mood with negated or not negated verbs”. Things could change when we take into account the presence of a negation in the main clause. […] a negation in a main clause could suggest a contrast between the content of the subordinate clause and its (implicitly present) negative counterpart, thereby making that negative potentiality relevant in the general context. (de Jonge 2004: 214)

The same holds for French as well. As long as a verb in the main clause is asserted, mood will hardly change in the subordinate clause. This can be illustrated by the minimal pair of examples (86)–(87) where affirmation of the main clause emphasizes the reality of the content of the subordinate clause, whether it is asserted or negated. (86) Je crois qu’il a (I) quitté Paris. ‘I believe that he has (I) left [a quitté] Paris.’ (87) Je crois qu’il n’a (I) pas quitté Paris. ‘I believe that he has (I) not left [a quitté] Paris.’

Negation of the verb of belief in examples (86)–(87) expresses the encoder’s disagreement or doubt about the content of the subordinate clause. When the encoder focuses on an absolute disagreement, the Indicative appears. When the encoder implies an alternative to what is stated in the subordinate clause, the Subjunctive appears. The minimal pair of examples (88)–(89) illustrates this difference. (88) Je ne crois pas qu’il a (I) quitté Paris. ‘I don’t believe that he has (I) left [a quitté] Paris.’ (89) Je ne crois pas qu’il ait (S) quitté Paris. ‘I don’t believe that he might (S) have left [ait quitté] Paris.’


From the set of examples (86)–(89), the following correlation can be predicted: Prediction 4: The negated main clause favors the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause rather than the Indicative.

Just as in the previous count, I have tried to cancel out the influence of grammatical constraints that require the Subjunctive or the Indicative in the subordinate clause. I have ruled out from the count the verbs and expressions that regularly co-occur with the Subjunctive and the Indicative. The results of the count that support Prediction 4 are presented in Table 5. The data in Table 5 come from a sample of more than one thousand eight hundred occurrences of the Indicative (Ind) and the Subjunctive (Sub) in the subordinate clause with negation (N) and affirmation (A) in the main clause. The cross totals rate of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative following negation is 38.7% versus 3.5%, used after affirmation. The odds ratio (OR) of each text considerably exceeds the significance value of 1. The Z-value (Z) for all the odds ratios, being above the significance value of 2.054, even more strongly confirms my prediction. It shows that the difference between the observed value and the calculated value is large enough and, therefore, statistically significant. This reflects the non-random character of the observed distribution. The data in Table 5 manifest a strong tendency towards the correlation of the Subjunctive with negation. This correlation is due to the compatibility between the invariant meaning Alternative of the Subjunctive and an alternative (affirmative) outcome, implied by negation. However, the meaning of negation is broader than just the implication of an alternative. Therefore, negation is exploited in more linguistic and situational contexts. This allows the encoder to use the Indicative in the subordinate clause after the negated main clause, which explains that the observed distribution is less than 100%. It might be argued that the results, as they appear in the columns of Table 5, contradict my prediction. According to the columns (N) in Table 5, the IndicaTable 5. Correlation of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative in the subordinate clause with negation vs. affirmation in the main clause

Ind Sub OR Sub % Z

Anouilh N A 9 123 2 6 4.556

Montherl N A 50 586 46 27 19.967

Vian N A 16 235 7 8 12.852 38.7% : 3.5% 9.542

Simenon N A 17 360 6 9 14.118

Camus N A 30 311 16 9 18.430


tive prevails over the Subjunctive in each selected text individually. However, my prediction was that the odds that a verb would be the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause after negation in the main clause would prevail over the odds that a verb would be the Indicative. This prediction has been confirmed by the data. For example, the odds of the Subjunctive after negation for the work of Montherlant (“Montherl”, in Table 5) is 46/27 = 1.704. The odds of the Indicative is 50/586 = 0.085, i.e. 19.967 times less than that of the Subjunctive. In other words, the count shows that in the text of Montherlant negation in the main clause is followed by the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause about twenty times as much as by the Indicative.

7.2 Implicit negation Implicit negation in the main clause emphasizes even more strongly an alternative than explicit negation ne…pas and, therefore, favors the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Implicit negation is more specific than explicit negation. It is expressed by conjunctions and verbs of denial with more precise and specific invariant meanings that emphasize an alternative. French has specific conjunctions that deny causation between an occurrence of the main clause and that of the subordinate clause. The denial that they express implies that causation might be possible, which favors the use of the Subjunctive. These conjunctions express the following: a. Alternative cause An alternative cause is introduced by the conjunction soit que … soit que ‘either because… or because’. It shows that an occurrence in the main clause might result from different (alternative) causes equally. It is noteworthy that the form soit of this conjunction is derived from the third person singular of the Present Subjunctive of the verb être ‘to be’. Example (90), taken from Un crime by Bernanos (1969) [1935], illustrates the use of the conjunction soit que … soit que to introduce an alternative cause. In this example, the investigator tries to understand why the ground was trampled down around the found corpse. He considers different (alternative) versions of the event. Therefore, this alternative is expressed by the Subjunctive in example (90). (90) Le cadavre reposait sur le flanc. Tout autour le sol était nu, soit que l’homme se fût (S) débattu dans son agonie soit que – plus vraisemblablement – son meurtrier eût (S) tenté de le traîner plus loin, sans y réussir. (Bernanos 1969 [1935] : 39)


‘The corpse lied on the side. The ground was trampled around either because the man might (S) have struggled [se fût débattu] in death agony or – more probably – because his murderer might (S) have tried [eût tenté] unsuccessfully to drag him farther.’

The same form soit is used in the conjunction soit … soit ‘either … or’, referring to a choice between different (alternative) entities or characteristics, as in example (91), taken from La symphonie pastorale by Gide (1963) [1925]. (91) […] le reproche d’Amélie était d’autant plus injuste qu’elle savait bien que chacun de mes enfants avait soit un travail à faire, soit quelque occupation qui le retenait […] (Gide 1963 [1925] : 64) ‘[…] Amélie’s reproach was all the more unfair, because she knew perfectly well that the other children were busy or occupied in one way or another […]’ (Gide 1949: 134)

I claim as well that the use of the conjunction soit ‘that is, i.e.’ to stipulate further details is also derived from the invariant meaning of the Present Subjunctive. The encoder uses this conjunction to formulate an idea in different (alternative) words, as in example (92), taken from the Internet site of the French newspaper Le Monde. (92) Le prix de l’essence à la pompe au Japon a atteint, au cours de la semaine du lundi 1er mai, son plus haut niveau depuis février 1991, soit au moment de la guerre du Golfe, a annoncé, lundi 8 mai, le Centre d’information sur le pétrole. (Le Monde, http://www.lemonde.fr/, Japon, 09.05.2006) ‘The Petroleum Information Center announced on Monday, May 8th that during the week from Monday, May 1st the price of petrol at gas stations in Japan achieved its highest level since February 1991, that is, since the Gulf War.’

b. Denied cause A denied cause is introduced by the conjunctions non que, ce n’est pas que ‘not that’. They show that an occurrence is erroneously considered the cause of an actual outcome, i.e. they imply that there might be an alternative cause. Example (93), taken from L’île ‘The Island’ by Merle (1962), illustrates this claim. In this example, the sailors discuss how to distribute the Tahitian women among them. The sailors’ leader explains that this decision is imposed by the need for an order that has to be introduced in their relationships with the Tahitians. He does not mind, however, the sailors’ cohabiting with the Tahitian women, as it might seem. This alternative is expressed by the Subjunctive in example (93).


(93) – […] on peut pas continuer à vivre dans la luxure et l’péché, comme à bord du Blossom. C’est pas qu’j’aie (S) rien contre l’péché. Ça va bien un moment, quand on est jeune et qu’on bourlingue. Mais maintenant qu’on s’est mis à quai, et qu’on a chacun son cottage, y faut de l’ordre, Dieu me damne ! (Merle 1962 : 206) ‘“[…] one cannot continue living in lust and sin, as it was on board Blossom. Not that I have (S) [aie] anything against the sin. It goes well when one is young and knocks about the world. But now, when we have tied up at quay and each of us has his own cottage, order is needed, God damns me!’

c. Denied consequence A denied consequence is introduced by the conjunction sans que ‘without doing’. It expresses an expected outcome that might have been achieved, but did not. Example (94), taken from Le Petit Prince by Saint-Exupery (1946), illustrates this point. In this example, the narrator holds the sleeping little prince tightly in his arms. However, it seems to him that the prince is flowing like sand from his arms, and the narrator can do nothing to restrain him. The Subjunctive appears in example (94) to imply an alternative to the denied, but expected consequence. (94) Je sentais bien qu’il se passait quelque chose d’extraordinaire. Je le serrais dans les bras comme un petit enfant, et cependant il me semblait qu’il coulait verticalement dans un abîme sans que je pusse (S) rien pour le retenir… (Saint-Exupéry 1946 : 86) ‘I realized clearly that something extraordinary was happening. I was holding him close in my arms as if he were a little child; and yet it seemed to me that he was rushing headlong toward an abyss from which I could (S) [pusse] do nothing to restrain him…’ (Saint-Exupery 1943: 82, 84)

d. Adversative consequence An adversative consequence is introduced by the conjunction loin que ‘instead of/rather than doing’. It expresses an occurrence that was expected to take place alternatively to what has actually taken place. Example (95), taken from the novel Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936), illustrates this claim. In this example, the writer Costals reproaches a pious country girl for being inconsistent. Instead of searching for an outlet for her depression in county fairs and enjoying mundane pleasures, she might have found them disgusting. This alternative is emphasized by the Subjunctive in example (95). (95) Vous allez à la foire, vous allez au chef-lieu, et, loin que ce que vous voyez là vous saisisse (S) de dégoût, vous y prenez plaisir. (Montherlant 1936 : 54) ‘You go to the fair, you go to the county town and, instead of feeling (S) [saisisse] disgust at what you see there, you enjoy there.’


e. Inoperative cause (cf. Soutet 2000: 93–94) or so-called concession An inoperative cause is introduced by the conjunctions bien que, encore que, quoique ‘although, though’. It expresses an occurrence that, from the encoder’s experience, might have ruled out an actual outcome, presented in the main clause, but in fact did not. An actual outcome in the main clause, considered to be the given, appears in the Indicative. An occurrence in the subordinate clause appears in the Subjunctive because it implies an alternative to the encoder’s experience or expectation. In other words, the encoder expects another occurrence that usually produces the outcome that appears in the main clause. Consider Leeman-Bouix (1994) on this matter: Donc la conjonction [bien que] suppose bien une prise en considération de deux possibilités [alternative!], puisqu’elle introduit celle à laquelle on ne s’attend pas, par opposition (implicite) à celle à laquelle on s’attend. (Leeman-Bouix 1994 : 92) ‘Thus, the conjunction bien que assumes the acknowledgment of two possibilities, since it introduces a possibility that one does not expect in (implicit) opposition to a possibility that one expects.’

Example (96), taken from the play Rhinocéros by Ionesco (1959), illustrates my claim. Botard, a cynical and skeptical character, refuses to believe that the city is being invaded by the herd of rhinoceroses. He thinks that Berenger confirms this news out of gallantry to please to Daisy, his colleague and his love. Berenger is known to drink too much and, according to Botard, he does not have the proper look of a chivalrous man. This alternative is emphasized by the Subjunctive in example (96). (96) Botard, ironique: – Oh! M. Bérenger dit cela par galanterie, car c’est un galant, bien qu’il n’en ait (S) pas l’air. (Ionesco 1959 : 102) ‘Botard [ironic]: Oh, Mr. Berenger says that out of chivalry – he’s a very chivalrous man even if he doesn’t look (S) [ait] it.’ (Ionesco 1960: 43)

I claim that the invariant meaning of the Present Subjunctive soit explains its use as an affirmative adverb [swat] ‘very well’ that expresses a reluctant approval or agreement. The encoder uses this adverb to concede unwillingly to an occurrence to which he/she perceives an alternative, as in example (97), taken from the novel Un crime de Bernanos (1969) [1935]. In this example, the investigator tries to understand why in such cold weather the murdered victim, whom the police took for a vagrant, was lightly dressed. While reasoning that vagrants usually cover up as warmly as they could, the investigator uses the adverb soit [swat], implying that even so they are very poorly dressed.


(97) L’examen des vêtements, lui aussi, fait réfléchir. Les vagabonds se couvrent comme ils peuvent, soit. Mais ils se couvrent. En novembre, il est rare d’en rencontrer vêtus d’un pantalon, d’une chemise, d’un gilet de laine, et les pieds nus dans des chaussettes de coton. (Bernanos 1969 [1935] : 122) ‘The examination of the clothes makes think, too. Vagrants cover up as well as they could, O.K. But they cover up. In November, it is unusual to meet them being dressed in trousers, in a shirt, in a woolen vest and being barefoot in cotton socks.’

Though an inoperative cause usually compares two facts or strong convictions, the Indicative is less regular in this context (cf. Cohen 1965: 174–178; Grevisse 2001: 1662–1663; Wagner & Pinchon 1962: 603). It appears when the encoder emphasizes determined occurrences rather than their opposition (alternative). Example (98), taken from the French edition of Jerusalem Post (01–07.12.99), illustrates this point. It presents the opinion of a rabbi about how to teach children to pray sincerely. He rejects any possibility that a sincere prayer might be a simple formality. Therefore, his opinion appears in the Indicative in example (98). (98) Au départ il ne s’agit que d’une habitude, bien que la prière, en tant que service du cœur […], ne peut (I) être l’objet de l’accoutumance. (Jerusalem Post, 01–07.12.99, p. 11) ‘At first, it is only a question of a habit, although the prayer as a heartfelt religious ceremony […] cannot (I) [peut] be habituated to.’

Besides the previously mentioned conjunctions, French has verbs of denial such as contester ‘to contest, to dispute’, démentir ‘to deny, to refute’, nier ‘to deny’. These verbs express the encoder’s disagreement with a fact or an opinion, presented as a fact, to which the encoder implicitly opposes his/her alternative opinion. The implication of an alternative explains the preference for the Subjunctive in subordinate clauses, introduced by these verbs (cf. Nordahl 1969: 140). Examples (99)– (100), taken from the Internet site of the French newspaper Le Monde, illustrate this point. They present the use of the Subjunctive after the verbs démentir and nier to imply an alternative to an occurrence, considered a fact. Example (99) deals with the official statement of the chief of Scotland Yard, concerning the investigation of the death of a Brazilian who was mistaken for a kamikaze and was shot by the London police. An opinion was that at first Scotland Yard impeded the investigation. The chief of Scotland Yard claims that this opinion is wrong. He denies all the accusations by emphasizing his alternative opinion with the Subjunctive. (99) Ian Blair, le patron de Scotland Yard, a démenti, jeudi 18 août, que ses services aient (S) voulu empêcher une enquête sur la mort de Jean-Charles


de Menezes. (Le Monde, http://www.lemonde.fr/, Le chef de Scotland Yard dément les accusations portées à son encontre, 18.08.05) ‘Ian Blair, the chief of Scotland Yard, denied on Thursday, August 18th that his services had (S) wanted [aient voulu] to hinder the investigation into the death of Jean-Charles of Menezes.’

Example (100) deals with the statement of an American representative in negotiations for the nuclear program of North Korea. The North Korean officials claim that the United States is the only country that rejects the request of North Korea for light water reactors instead of their nuclear reactors. The American representative argues that this claim is wrong. He denies it by emphasizing an alternative with the Subjunctive. (100) A l’issue d’un déjeuner avec ses homologues nippon et sud-coréen, l’émissaire américain n’a pas voulu se prononcer sur la suite des discussions. « Nous saurons plus tard si nous avons fait des progrès ou non », a-t-il déclaré. M. Hill a également nié que les États-Unis soient (S) le seul participant aux discussions à rejeter la demande d’un réacteur, comme l’affirme Pyongyang. (Le Monde, http://www.lemonde.fr/, Pourparlers nord-coréens […], 16.09.05) ‘At the end of a lunch with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts, the American emissary did not want to speak about the continuation of the discussions. “We will know later whether or not we have made progress”, he declared. Mr. Hill also denied that the United States is (S) [soient] the only participant in the discussions that rejects the request for a reactor, as it is claimed by Pyongyang.’

The Indicative is more unusual after the verbs of denial. However, the encoder uses this mood to emphasize a fact that has been denied rather than expressing his/her disagreement (alternative opinion). Example (101), taken from the Internet site of the French newspaper Le Monde, illustrates this point. This example deals with an interview in which Lance Armstrong, the seven-time champion of Tour de France, refutes accusations of taking drugs. In this interview, Armstrong claims that nobody can deny the fact that cycling is a sport that does not ignore its doping problems and tries to solve them. He rejects any alternative to this fact and emphasizes it with the Indicative. (101) Lance Armstrong avait alors répondu à la place de son ami néerlandais, affirmant : « Le cyclisme est assurément un sport qui a eu ses problèmes – de dopage – mais qui peut nier que nous l’avons (I) nettoyé ? » (Le Monde, http://www.lemonde.fr/, Polémique sur l’origine des fuites dans l’affaire Armstrong, 16.09.05)


‘Lance Armstrong then answered instead of his Dutch friend and said: “Cycling is surely a sport that had the problems of doping. But who can deny that we have (I) cleaned [avons nettoyé] it?”’

Examples (90)–(101) show that implicit negation, expressed by specific conjunctions and verbs of denial, emphasizes an alternative. Therefore, implicit negation favors the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause even more strongly than explicit negation ne…pas. The Indicative, though much more unusual after these conjunctions and verbs, is used when the encoder considers that an alternative is inappropriate in the given context.

7.3 The uniqueness of an occurrence As previously stated, the encoder can use the opposition of the Subjunctive versus the Indicative in relative clauses to avoid or to emphasize, respectively, his/her commitment to an occurrence. In this case, the Subjunctive is preferred for antecedents that represent undifferentiated entities or indefinite pronouns such as quelqu’un ‘somebody’, quelque chose ‘something’ rather than differentiated entities. The Subjunctive implies the alternative that appropriate antecedents might not be found. I distinguish these relative clauses from those whose antecedents follow the superlative expressions le (la, les) plus ‘the most’, le (la, les) moins ‘the least’ or their equivalents. Among these are restrictive adjectives such as le seul, l’unique ‘the only’, restrictive expressions such as il n’y a que ‘only’, ordinal adjectives such as le premier ‘the first’, le dernier ‘the last’. Most sentence-oriented studies (cf. Andersson 1972; Hejno 1988; Kampers-Manhe 1987, 1991) consider the use of mood in relative clauses in general, without distinguishing between them. These studies provide lists of various contexts where one mood is preferred over the other or both of them are equally possible. They attribute the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive to diverse syntactic or formal semantic factors rather than explain it by the influence of the invariant meanings of both moods. I believe that the superlative is another way to imply negation. The superlative shows that an entity is unique in its type because it has the most of a particular quality of any possible (alternative) entity. Guillaume (1971) states the following on the matter: Le subjonctif, après les idées de cette espèce, est amené par un mouvement de pensée dans le sens de l’exception, lequel mouvement emporte avec soi secrètement un examen critique des conditions de possibilité. (Guillaume 1971 : 219)


‘The subjunctive after the ideas of this kind is caused by a movement of thought towards exception, which implies the critical consideration of the conditions of possibility.’

The implication of an alternative accounts for the frequent use of the Subjunctive in this linguistic context. The decoder infers from the correlation of the superlative and the Subjunctive that no other entity, more appropriate than an antecedent, could be differentiated in the given context. In other words, this correlation shows that an antecedent is the best or the only possible choice. Eriksson (1979: 88) distinguishes between the use of mood following the superlative expressions le (la, les) plus ‘the most’/le (la, les) moins ‘the least’ and that following their equivalents. According to Eriksson, in the first case, the choice of mood depends on the range of compared antecedents. The vast field of comparison involves the Subjunctive, whereas the limited field involves the Indicative. In the second case, the choice of mood depends on whether an antecedent is viewed on his/her/its own, as being separate from others. The more an antecedent is considered individually, as someone/something distinct or unique, the more the Subjunctive appears. Eriksson provides the results of the count for the distribution of the Subjunctive, the Future-Conditional and the Indicative following different superlative expressions. These results, opposing the instances of the Subjunctive and the grouped instances of the Indicative-Conditional, are presented in Table 6. The results in Table 6 show the different distribution for different superlative expressions. The more formally expressed superlative favors the Subjunctive, whereas its equivalents premier ‘the first’, dernier ‘the last’ and peu, rares ‘few’ favor the Indicative. I claim that the more the encoder emphasizes a difference (alternative) between an antecedent and other possible entities, the more the Subjunctive appears. The formally expressed superlative, opposing an antecedent to the wide range of other entities, has the highest rate of the Subjunctive in Table 6. The rate of the Subjunctive for le seul and l’unique ‘the only’ is also high because they introduce an antecedent, being a single one that possesses a feature, as opposed to other entities. Le premier ‘the first’ and le dernier ‘the last’ indicate a hierarchical posiTable 6. The distribution of the Subjunctive vs. the Indicative-Conditional following different superlative expressions Superlative seul, unique premier, dernier peu, rares

Subjunctive

Indicative-Conditional

Rate (%)

293 266 56 11

63 211 248 54

82% : 18% 56% : 44% 18% : 82% 17% : 83%


tion of an antecedent regarding other possible entities. These adjectives imply a particular order rather than the difference between entities, which explains the lower rate of the Subjunctive for premier and dernier in Table 6. The superlative expressions, however, can also be used to consider an antecedent separately from other available entities, deemphasizing a possible alternative. In this case, the encoder uses the Indicative rather than the Subjunctive. The set of examples (102)–(107) illustrates the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative to emphasize and deemphasize an alternative, respectively. Examples (102)–(103) present two ways of viewing entities following the formally expressed superlative. Example (102), taken from the French newspaper Le Figaro (01.12.99), deals with the beatification of two children that happens for the first time in the history of the Church. The Subjunctive in the subordinate clause emphasizes that the two children are the youngest possible blessed not martyrs, ever beatified by the Church. (102) Les deux petits bergers de Fatima seront les bienheureux non martyrs les plus jeunes que l’Église ait (S) proclamés jusqu’à présent. (Le Figaro, 01.12.99, p. 11) ‘The two little shepherds from Fatima will be the youngest blessed not martyrs whom the Church has (S) beatified [ait proclamés] until now’.

Example (103) has been taken from the novel La fin de Chéri ‘The Last of Chéri’ by Colette (1970 [1960]) that is the continuation of the love story between the gigolo Chéri and the older woman Léa. In this example, Chéri, paying Léa a visit after many years, recognizes a pearl of a particular size and color in the necklace that Léa wore when they were together. He compares this pearl with the others in the necklace, regardless of all possible pearls, which deemphasizes an alternative and entails the Indicative in example (103). (103) Chéri reconnaissait la perle frappe d’une fossette, la perle un peu ovoïde, la perle la plus grosse qui se signalait (I) par un rose unique. (Colette 1970 [1960] : 193) ‘Chéri recognized the dented pearl, the one that was slightly oval in shape, the largest one of all, that stood (I) out from the rest by reason of its extraordinary rose tint.’ (Colette 1951: 183)

Examples (104)–(105), taken from Caligula by Camus (1958), present two ways of viewing entities following the restrictive adjectives l’unique, le seul ‘the only’. In example (104), Caligula speaks about what distinguishes him from other writers. Caligula considers himself the best and exceptional poet that Rome has ever known because he composes in harmony with his deeds, unlike other poets. Therefore, he emphasizes this difference with the Subjunctive.


(104) Caligula : […] Je continue. C’est l’unique composition que j’aie (S) faite. Mais aussi, elle donne la preuve que je suis le seul artiste que Rome ait (S) connu, le seul, tu entends, Cherea, qui mette (S) en accord sa pensée et ses actes. (Camus 1958 : 141) ‘Caligula: […] I continue. It’s the only poem I have (S) made [aie faite]. And it’s proof that I’m the only true artist Rome has (S) known [ait connu] – the only one, believe me – to match (S) [mette] his inspiration with his deeds.’ (Camus 1947a: 84)

In example (105), Caligula is saying that he blasphemes against gods because he is deprived of the humility of his friend Scipio. Caligula focuses only on humility that he cannot feel, without emphasizing an alternative. Therefore, he presents his lack of humility in the Indicative. (105) Scipion : Je puis nier une chose sans me croire obligé de la salir ou de retirer aux autres le droit d’y croire. Caligula : Mais c’est de la modestie, cela, de la vraie modestie ! Oh ! cher Scipion, que je suis content pour toi. Et envieux, tu sais… Car c’est le seul sentiment que je n’éprouverai (I) peut-être jamais. (Camus 1958 : 98) ‘Scipio: One may deny something without feeling called on to besmirch it, or deprive others of the right of believing in it. Caligula: But that’s humility, the real thing, unless I’m much mistaken. Ah, my dear Scipio, how glad I am on your behalf – and a trifle envious, too. Humility’s the one emotion I may (S) never feel [éprouverai].’ (Camus 1947a: 56–57)

Examples (106)–(107) present two ways of viewing entities following the ordinal adjective le premier ‘the first’. Example (106), taken from Le Figaro (01.12.99), deals with John Paul II and his election as a head of the Roman Catholic Church. The figure of John Paul II is exceptional because since the 15th century all other popes were Italians. In other words, John Paul II differs from (is an alternative to) all those Italian popes who have been at the head of the Church during the last five hundred years. Therefore, this alternative is emphasized by the Subjunctive in example (106). (106) Il est d’une part le premier pape qui ne soit (S) pas italien, depuis le XVe siècle. (Le Figaro, 01.12.99, p. 39) ‘On the one hand, he is the first pope who is (S) [soit] not Italian since the 15th century.’

Example (107), taken from the novel L’Arrache-Cœur ‘Heartsnatcher’ by Vian (1962), presents the use of the Indicative in the context of the above example. The passage of example (107) deals with the boatman La Gloïre, paid with gold for


taking the shame of the village and for picking up the garbage that floats on the river. While explaining who can take his place in the boat, La Gloïre rules out any alternative because to replace him one must certainly feel more shame than he does. Therefore, this result is emphasized by the Indicative in example (107). (107) – Le premier qui a (I) plus honte que moi prend la place, dit l’homme. […] Ils ont leur conscience pour eux. Jamais de remords. Mais celui qui faiblit… Celui qui se révolte… (Vian 1962 : 56) ‘“The first feeling (I) [a] ashamed more than me, will take the place, the man said. […] They have their own conscience and never remorse. But the one who weakens… The one who rebels…”’

Examples (102)–(107) show that the encoder uses the superlative to imply negation (alternative) in the main clause, which very often entails the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause. The Indicative is used in this linguistic context to deemphasize any such alternative.

7.4 Summary and conclusions To summarize, the “micro-level” analysis of individual examples of the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive has shown that their choice is determined by the opposition in their invariant meanings. This opposition underlies the Occurrence System. The Indicative focuses the decoder’s attention on an occurrence, experienced in the present or the past, or expected to take place in the future. The Subjunctive reorients the decoder’s attention to an alternative occurrence that might also be possible. The analysis has shown different communicative strategies of the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive to contribute to particular messages. These strategies have been based on the invariant meanings of both moods in correlation with the signs of other grammatical systems that contextually share the semantic domain of the Occurrence System. These correlations result from the sign-oriented definition of language as a “system of systems composed of various sub-systems […] which are organized internally and systematically related to each other and used by human beings to communicate” (Tobin 1990: 47). Consider also Guillaume (1970) who states on the matter as follows: Tout se tient dans une langue et l’état d’un système conditionne l’état des autres systèmes. Ainsi tous les systèmes réunis n’en font qu’un seul, qui constitue l’état de langue. (Guillaume 1970 : 42)


‘Everything in language holds together and one system influences other systems. So, all the systems considered together make a single whole that constitutes language.’

I have validated the postulated meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive quantitatively. The quantitative analysis provides the general principles of the distribution of both moods in individual examples. Consider Davis (2002) who states the following about the significance of quantitative analysis: […] quantitative work […] help[s] to insure that the hypotheses put forth are neither accidents of a few striking examples nor facile readings of stereotypical sentences out of context, but instead are explanatory statements with a general validity. (Davis 2002: 65)

The quantitative analysis, performed on several texts of different styles and genres, has shown the direct connection between (a) the degree of the specificity of antecedents, (b) the degree of the personalization of an occurrence, (c) the degree of the encoder’s focus on the subject and (d) the use of negation in the main clause and the use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause.

part 4

“Macro-level” analysis

Text is non-randomly organized discourse The “micro-level” analysis has shown that the choice between the Indicative and the Subjunctive is not arbitrary but influenced by the opposition in their invariant meanings. I expect that the non-random distribution of both moods, confirmed at the level of individual examples, will also appear in the “macro-level” discourse, i.e. throughout texts. Assuming that people produce coherent messages, any text can be viewed as an inventory of different ideas (contexts, themes or leitmotifs) consistently built around the major textual message. Davis (2002) remarks on this matter as follows: A novel is no more a random sample of linguistic forms than a symphony is a random sample of musical notes. (Davis 2002: 71–72)

And further: The individual observations are not independent because there is an overriding factor, a thematic concern, at play in making them less than randomly distributed. (ibid: 73)

In my “macro-level” analysis, I apply two different approaches: the “from sign to text” approach and the “from text to sign” approach. These approaches have been suggested by Tobin (1990, 1993, 1995) for the analysis of the distribution of linguistic forms within the “macro-level” discourse. The “from sign to text” approach deals with the consistent use of linguistic forms in particular contexts within a text. The “from text to sign” approach deals with the distribution of linguistic forms motivated by the message of a text itself that is viewed as a sign.

chapter 8

“From sign to text” approach

The “from sign to text” approach exploits the capability of the abstract invariant meaning of a specific sign within a system to contribute to specific messages. In these messages, the use of one particular sign is more appropriate than the use of other signs of the same system. A text can be divided into themes or leitmotifs that may be associated with messages to which the invariant meaning of that specific sign contributes. The consistent and repeated exploitation of the sign within specific contexts related to specified leitmotifs creates a sense of coherence and cohesion in a text. Consider Tobin (1995) on this matter: The ability to trace the consistent uses of a sign within a system to appear in specific contexts within a particular text is what we call the “from sign to text” approach. It allows us to view the text in the hierarchical ascending order of sign and system to context and text. (Tobin 1995: 62)

Following Tobin (ibid), the “from sign to text” approach implies in this volume: 1. The distribution of the Subjunctive versus the Indicative is not random, but is skewed along thematic lines within specific texts. 2. The choice and preference of one or the other mood can be related directly to particular themes, specific characters and recurring or related events in the plot or sub-plots within the text. 3. Therefore, the choice and preference of one mood over the other can serve as part of a larger system of textual coherence and cohesion. The example of the “from sign to text” approach is the analysis of the English connectives also and too in the texts Alice in Wonderland by Carroll (1961) and Looking for Mr. Goodbar by Rossner (1976), discussed in Tobin (1990: 151–187). While dealing with these connectives, Tobin (ibid: 154–156) postulates that both share the semantic domain of addition. He assumes that these connectives are not synonyms. […] each possesses a single invariant meaning which distinguishes it from the other, and will motivate its distribution in the language. (Tobin 1990: 155)


TEXTUAL COHERENCE AND COHESION creates APPEARANCE OF A SIGN IN PARTICULAR LEITMOTIFS (Indicative vs. Subjunctive repeated use within specific contexts) motivates MEANING OF A SIGN (Indicative vs. Subjunctive)

Figure 6. “From sign to text” approach

The difference between them revolves around the feature ‘semantic integrality’. This feature shows “whether an entity or entities is/are perceived as occupying a single continuous space or not” (Tobin 1990: 155). Within the pair also/too, also is unmarked (U) and too is marked (M) for ‘semantic integrality’. This means that in each case, too (M) presents an addition between two entities “as being integral”, i.e. as “occupying the same continuous internal space” (ibid). The unmarked form also does not necessarily present an addition as being integral. Tobin (ibid: 157– 186) shows how the postulated invariant meanings motivate the choice of forms throughout the texts Alice in Wonderland by Carroll (1961) and Looking for Mr. Goodbar by Rossner (1976). Where the encoder focuses on the unity, on “the integrality of an addition” (Tobin 1990: 157), the marked form too appears. Where the encoder emphasizes the disunity, the unmarked form also appears. The “from sign to text” approach is represented schematically in Figure 6. The texts that I have chosen for the “from sign to text” analysis are Le Malentendu ‘The Misunderstanding’ by Camus (1958) and Le revolver de Maigret by Simenon (1952).

8.1 Le Malentendu (The Misunderstanding) This play by Albert Camus is concerned with the absurdness and meaninglessness of human existence where people are unable to establish communication with others. The plot takes place in Bohemia where two women, Martha and her mother, keep a small hotel. They rob rich travelers and throw them in the river. In this way, Martha saves money in order to enable her to leave her depressing country and to move to a country by the sea. The prodigal son Jan who returns home after twenty years checks in at the hotel. He made a fortune in a country by the sea where he

Chapter 8. “From sign to text” approach 169

wants to take his mother and sister. Jan books a room as a regular traveler, but tries in various subtle ways to reveal his identity to them. Despite this, the mother and sister do not recognize him. In the night, the two women rob and kill Jan. Only the next morning, they find his identity card with the real name of their victim. I have divided the play into two opposite leitmotifs that can be associated with the encoder’s commitment or avoidance to commit to an occurrence. They represent the character’s decisiveness and directness versus the character’s indecisiveness and indirectness. I claim that the Indicative and the Subjunctive are distributed non-randomly in the play. As previously stated, the opposition between the invariant meanings of both moods allows the encoder to emphasize or deemphasize his/her commitment to an occurrence. The Indicative, meaning Occurrence, contributes to communicate messages associated with the encoder’s commitment. Therefore, it may be preferred for contexts that emphasize the character’s decisiveness and directness. The Subjunctive, meaning Alternative, contributes to messages that deemphasize the encoder’s commitment. Consequently, it seems more appropriate for contexts that focus on the character’s indecisiveness and indirectness. Based on the plot and on the invariant meanings of both moods, I predict the following systematic distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive for each specific context: 1. The more decisive and direct the character is, the less the Subjunctive and the more the Indicative is used. 2. The more indecisive and indirect the character is, the more the Subjunctive and the less the Indicative is used. The characters of Jan and his wife Maria serve as leitmotifs of the play. They demonstrate the consistency in the exploitation of the Indicative and the Subjunctive for different contexts in the play. In the first act, we see that Jan decides to conceal his identity out of stubbornness and Maria fails to dissuade him from this decision. Jan makes up his mind to remain incognito in order to view his mother and sister from the outside. Therefore, the Indicative is largely preferred in his speech, as in examples (1)–(2). (1) Jan : […] Je suis venu ici apporter ma fortune et, si je le puis, du bonheur. Quand j’ai appris la mort de mon père, j’ai compris que j’avais (I) des responsabilités envers elles deux et, l’ayant compris, je fais ce qu’il faut. Mais je suppose que ce n’est (I) pas si facile qu’on le dit (I) de rentrer chez soi et qu’il faut (I) un peu de temps pour faire un fils d’un étranger. (Camus 1958 : 173) ‘Jan: […] I have come here to bring them my money and, if I can, some happiness. When I learnt about my father’s death I realized I had (I) [avais] duties


towards these two women and now, as a result, I’m doing what it’s right for me to do. But evidently it is (I) [est] not so easy as people think (I) [dit], coming back to one’s old home, and it takes (I) [faut] time to change a stranger into a son.’ (Camus 1947a : 107) (2) Jan : […] Je n’ai pas besoin d’elles, mais j’ai compris qu’elles devaient (I) avoir besoin de moi et qu’un homme n’était (I) jamais seul. (Camus 1958 : 174) ‘Jan: […] I don’t need them; but I realized they may (I) [devaient] need me, and a man doesn’t (I) [était] live only for himself.’ (Camus 1947a: 108)

Maria tries to persuade Jan to reveal his identity to his mother and sister but all her attempts are in vain. Though Maria prefers to be direct, she is indecisive and does not succeed to make Jan change his mind. She gives in to Jan’s arguments and agrees to stay alone for one night as he wishes. In the first act, hence, Maria often uses the Subjunctive, as in examples (3)–(4). (3) Maria : Donnons-nous au moins cette chance que quelqu’un vienne (S) et que je te fasse (S) reconnaître malgré toi. (Camus 1958 : 171) ‘Maria: Do please let us take the chance of someone’s coming (S) [vienne] and my telling (S) [fasse] who you are.’ (Camus 1947a : 105) (4) Maria : Je veux rester. Je me tairai et j’attendrai près de toi que tu sois (S) reconnu. (Camus 1958 : 176) ‘Maria: Do, please, let me stay. I promise not to speak a word, only to stay beside you till you’re (S) [sois] recognized.’ (Camus 1947a: 109)

As previously stated, the Columbia School validates predictions, made for the “macro-level” discourse, by quantitative methods that show favorings for the use of particular meanings. Reid (1995) states the following on the role of quantitative analysis in linguistic research: Quantitative techniques of analysis are useful in this stage for two reasons. First, in a sign-based conception of linguistic structure there is no reason to distinguish intra-sentential from inter-sentential phenomena. As a consequence, a grammatical system must account for both. At the sentence level the relevant data can be categorical facts about which there is no dispute; but beyond the sentence they usually involve statistical tendencies. Quantitative analysis is then the appropriate tool for isolating and formulating such tendencies. Secondly, even at the sentence level the expected interpretive effect of a grammatical sign is sometimes too subtle to be reliably identified through introspection alone. In such cases it must be inferred from the presence of another morphological feature in the larger context. Again, statistical analysis is useful in establishing a predicted relation between a grammatical sign and some independent feature of the larger context. (Reid 1995: 116)


Table 7. From sign to text (Le Malentendu): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for different leitmotifs in the Act I Maria Indicative Subjunctive Subjunctive (%) OR Z

Leitmotifs

23 11

Jan 35 4

32.4% : 10.3% 4.185 : 1 2.229

To validate my predictions, I have calculated the rate (percentage) of the Subjunctive for the examined leitmotifs. I have also calculated the odds ratio (OR) of the degree of observed correlation between the Subjunctive and the Indicative, on the one hand, and both leitmotifs, on the other. Finally, I have calculated the Z-value (Z) for the given odds ratio of these leitmotifs. I have counted all the instances of the Indicative and the Subjunctive used by Jan and Maria in the first act. The analysis shows whether in this act, tvhe Subjunctive consistently occurs in the speech of Maria, whereas the Indicative occurs in the Jan’s speech. The results of the count for this prediction are presented in Table 7. The data in Table 7 support my prediction. The rate of the Subjunctive is 32.4% in the speech of Maria versus 10.3% in the speech of Jan. The odds ratio exceeds the significance value of 1. It shows that in the first act Maria uses the Subjunctive more than four times as often as Jan does. Though Maria is indecisive, she remains direct with Jan, which explains the frequency of occurrences of the Indicative in her speech. On the other hand, Jan behaves decisively and directly only to Maria, but in a few scenes with his mother and sister, he shows himself indecisive and indirect. This explains four occurrences of the Subjunctive in his speech. The Z-value (Z) in Table 7 is greater than 2.054, which points out the significance of the predicted distribution. In the second act, Jan wants his mother and sister to recognize him and looks for different (alternative) ways and opportunities to reveal his identity. He wants to speak with his mother and sister alone and, therefore, leaves Maria. Jan tries to choose appropriate words to be recognized, but he cannot bring himself to tell the truth to them directly. He prefers to keep silent relying on their intuition. Therefore, Jan largely exploits the Subjunctive in the second act, as in examples (5)–(6). (5) Jan : […] Mais sans doute comprendrez-vous que tout ici me paraisse (S) singulier, le langage et les êtres. Cette maison est vraiment étrange. (Camus 1958 : 214)


‘Jan: […] Still perhaps you’ll let me say that everything here strikes (S) [paraisse] me as very strange; the people and their way of speaking. Really this is a queer house.’ (Camus 1947a: 136) (6) Jan : Oh ! cela est sûr et je ne vous reproche rien. Vous êtes seulement les premières personnes que je rencontre depuis mon retour et il est naturel que je sente (S) d’abord avec vous les difficultés qui m’attendent. (Camus 1958 : 221) ‘Jan: Indeed you have, and I’ve nothing to complain of. The truth is that you are the first people I have met since my return, so it’s natural my first taste of the difficulties ahead should (S) [sente] come when I’m with you.’ (Camus 1947a: 141)

I believe that the character of Jan shows the opposite tendency in the use of both moods in the first two acts. My prediction is that indecisive and indirect Jan in the second act prefers the Subjunctive as much as decisive and direct Jan in the first act favors the Indicative. The results of the test for this prediction are found in Table 8. The data in Table 8 support my prediction. One can see that the rate of the Subjunctive is 37.2% for indecisive and indirect Jan in the second act versus 10.3% for decisive and direct Jan in the first act. The odds ratio (OR) shows that the Subjunctive is more than five times as prevalent for indecisive and indirect Jan in the second act as for decisive and direct Jan in the first act. The Z-value (Z) of this odds ratio, being above the significance value of 2.054, confirms my prediction as well. In the third act, Maria takes on herself to go to the inn and to notify the mother and sister that Jan is their son and brother. However, she learns that they have killed her husband, their own flesh and blood. Maria is shocked by the death of Jan. In her conversation with Jan’s sister Martha, Maria represents his death as a fait accompli. Therefore, she uses the Indicative very much in the third act, as in examples (7)–(9). Table 8. From sign to text (Le Malentendu): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for the character of Jan for the first two Acts Jan (Act II) Indicative Subjunctive Subjunctive (%) OR Z

Leitmotifs

27 16

Jan (Act I) 35 4

37.2% : 10.3% 5.185 : 1 2.688


(7) Maria, elle recule : Non, non… c’est moi qui suis folle et qui entends des mots qui n’ont (I) encore jamais retenti sur cette terre. Je savais que rien de bon ne m’attendait (I) ici […] (Camus 1958 : 245) ‘Maria: [Shrinking away.] It must be I who am mad. I’m hearing words that have (I) never before been said [ont retenti] on this earth. I knew that no good would (I) come [attendait] to me here […]’ (Camus 1947a: 162) (8) Maria, toujours avec le même effort : Aviez-vous appris déjà qu’il était (I) votre frère ? (Camus 1958 : 247) ‘Maria: [Still controlling herself with an effort.] Had you learnt he was (I) [était] your brother when you did it?’ (Camus 1947a: 163) (9) Maria, retournant vers la table, les poings contre la poitrine, d’une voix sourde : Oh ! mon Dieu, je savais que cette comédie ne pouvait (I) être que sanglante, et que lui et moi serions punis de nous y prêter. […] Il voulait se faire reconnaître de vous, retrouver sa maison, vous apporter le bonheur, mais il ne savait pas trouver la parole qu’il fallait (I). (Camus 1958 : 247) ‘Maria: [Going towards the table, her hands clenched on her breast; in a low, sad voice.] Oh, my God, I knew it! I knew this play-acting was (I) [pouvait] bound to end in tragedy and we’d be punished, he and I, for having lent ourselves to it. […] He wanted to make his homecoming a surprise, to get you to recognize him and to bring you happiness. Only at first he couldn’t find the words that were (I) [fallait] needed.’ (Camus 1947a: 163)

The next prediction is that the exploitation of the Indicative and the Subjunctive by Maria is different in the first act and in the third act of the play. I predict that the Subjunctive in Maria’s speech is preferred in the first act as much as the Indicative is preferred in the last act. In the first act, she does not know where Jan’s caprice could lead. She only considers the possibility of what might happen. Therefore, Maria is indecisive when she tries to persuade Jan to reveal his identity. In the last act, she is more decisive, especially when she realizes what has happened. In other words, while Maria’s directness remains the same in both acts, she becomes more decisive in the last act. The results of the count for this prediction are shown in Table 9. Overall, the data in Table 9 support my prediction. The rate of the Subjunctive is 32.4% for indecisive Maria in the first act, versus 13.3%, for more decisive Maria in the last act. The lower result of the Z-value that does not exceed the significance value of 2.054 may be explained by the smaller number of examples in this count. Moreover, Maria becomes more decisive in the last act, but her directness remains the same in both acts. The lower Z-value may reflect this fact. Nevertheless, according to a standard Z-table (cf. Muller 1992: 175), the Z-value of 1.751 has the probability p of 0.0799, i.e. a 92% confidence level. This means that in 92 cases


Table 9. From Sign to text (Le Malentendu): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for the character of Maria for the beginning vs. the end of the play Maria (Act I) Indicative Subjunctive Subjunctive (%) OR Z

Leitmotifs

23 11

Maria (Act III) 26 4

32.4% : 13.3% 3.109 : 1 1.751

out of 100, the observed distribution is not random. This level of significance is acceptable for less rigorous counts. In addition, the odds ratio confirms the credibility of the count. It shows that the Subjunctive is more than three times as prevalent for direct, but indecisive Maria in the first act as for direct and decisive Maria in the third act. The analysis of the text allows me to claim that both the Indicative and the Subjunctive are non-randomly distributed in the play. Their distribution is consistent throughout the text, as it shows the predominance of one mood over the other for particular contexts or leitmotifs, associated with the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. The Indicative is preferred for acts and scenes that emphasize the character’s decisiveness and directness. The Subjunctive is favored for acts and scenes that emphasize the character’s indecisiveness and indirectness.

8.2 Le revolver de Maigret I have also applied the “from sign to text” analysis to a detective story by Simenon (1952). This story deals with an investigation conducted by police Captain Maigret. The captain looks for a young man who stole his revolver. Simultaneously, he investigates the murder of a controversial deputy, well known for provocations in Parliament. The suspicions of Maigret fall on Baron Lagrange whose son, as we learn later, stole Maigret’s revolver. Lagrange resists arrest by pretending to be insane. Maigret leaves for London where Lagrange junior, armed with his revolver, looks for Jeanne Debul who was suspected of blackmailing the assassinated deputy. Maigret arrests Lagrange Jr. with the help of his British colleagues from Scotland Yard. Through the detailed investigation, Maigret discovers that Baron Lagrange was Jeanne Debul’s accomplice and killed the deputy who tried to get hold of the blackmailing documents. As previously stated, the invariant meaning of the Indicative contributes to messages that express real and certain occurrences. Therefore, one could expect


that this mood would be preferred for those contexts where characters are certain and confident that events may take place. The invariant meaning of the Subjunctive contributes to messages that express uncertain or doubtful occurrences. Therefore, one could expect that the Subjunctive would be favored in those contexts where characters are uncertain and doubtful about events taking place. A detective story can be conventionally divided into two parts: the outset of an investigation and the outcome of an investigation. They may be associated with the messages to which the invariant meanings of both moods contribute. My prediction is that the Subjunctive and the Indicative are distributed differently for the different stages of detective stories. I apply this prediction to the specific detective story by Simenon. Most of the questions are concentrated in the outset of the inquiries, conducted by Maigret. The police do not know who has committed the crimes and what the motives for both crimes are. Therefore, I predict that the Subjunctive is preferred in the outset of the story. Most of the answers appear at the end of the inquiries when the police find the criminals and discover their motives. Therefore, my prediction is that the Indicative is favored at the outcome of the story. It is significant to note that the story has nine chapters that I have grouped together into three parts. Part 1 includes the first three chapters that raise some questions about the theft of Maigret’s revolver and the murder of the deputy. Part 2 includes Chapters 4–8 that deal with the investigation of both crimes. Part 3 includes the last chapter that is rather an epilogue. Part 1 represents the outset of both investigations with focus on the investigation of the sensational murder of the controversial deputy. Maigret does not know who stole his revolver and why the deputy was killed. The police have a suspect but no evidence against him and many open questions, as in the set of examples (10)–(14) with the Subjunctive. In example (10), Maigret’s wife does not understand why the young man with such a pleasing appearance stole the revolver. (10) – De quoi crois-tu qu’il s’agisse (S) ? (Simenon 1952 : 14) ‘“What do you think this is (S) [s’agisse] about?”’

In example (11), a friend of Maigret, who heard about the stolen revolver, shares his suspicions with Maigret about the possible involvement of Lagrange junior in the theft. (11) – […] Ce serait un hasard, évidemment, qu’il s’agisse (S) justement du jeune homme qui… (Simenon 1952 : 27) ‘“[…] It would be obviously a coincidence if the matter was (S) [s’agisse] just about this young man who…”’


In example (12), Maigret asks Baron Lagrange for any information that could help the police find his son who disappeared several days ago. (12) – Vous n’avez aucune indication à me fournir qui nous permette (S) de retrouver votre fils ? (Simenon 1952 : 36) ‘“Don’t you have any information that could (S) let [permette] us find your son?”’

In example (13), Maigret’s assistant expresses his suspicion about the caliber of the gun that shot the deputy, but which has not yet been found. (13) – La balle est entrée par l’oeil gauche et s’est logée dans le crâne. Elle n’est pas ressortie. Autant que j’en puisse (S) juger, c’est une balle de petit calibre. (Simenon 1952 : 57) “The bullet penetrated through the left eye and was lodged in the skull. It didn’t come out. As far as I can (S) [puisse] judge, this is a bullet of a small caliber gun.”’

In example (14), Maigret expresses his uncertainty about Lagrange’s guilt and the willingness of the latter to cooperate with the police. It is significant that this example is at the end of Part 1, i.e. the outset of the investigations, when the police find some answers. Therefore, these answers appear in the Indicative, whereas the questions that remain open appear in the Subjunctive. (14) – Je ne prétends pas que vous avez tué André Delteil. Il est possible que vous soyez (S) innocent du crime. J’ignore tout, je l’avoue, de ce qui s’est passé ici, mais je suis certain que c’est (I) vous qui avez (I) transporté à la consigne le cadavre enfermé dans votre malle. Dans votre propre intérêt, il vaut mieux que vous parliez (S). (Simenon 1952 : 65) ‘“I don’t claim that you killed André Delteil. You might (S) be [soyez] possibly innocent. I know nothing about what happened here, I must admit, but I’m certain that you carried (I) [avez transporté] the corpse in your trunk to the checkroom. It’s in your interest. You would do better to speak (S) [parliez].”’

Chapters 4–8 deal with the investigation of the theft of the revolver that is connected with deputy’s murder. This connection is discovered after the arrest of Lagrange junior who stole the gun. The arrest provides Maigret with the answers to the questions, asked in the outset. Therefore, these answers are presented in the Indicative in examples (15)–(19). In example (15), Maigret learns from a servant that Lagrange junior has not been involved in Jeanne Debul shady dealings, unlike his father. This information


helps Maigret understand why the young man has stolen his revolver. Therefore, the Indicative appears in example (15). (15) – Vous êtes sûre qu’il n’est (I) jamais venu voir votre patronne ? – En tout cas, pas depuis que je suis avec elle. (Simenon 1952 : 97) ‘“Are you sure that he has (I) never come [est venu] to see your lady boss?” “In any case, not since I’ve been working for her.”’

In example (16), the police find the dossier of Baron Lagrange. It contains information on Maigret: the development of his carrier, his character, his attitude towards an accused, and explains the Baron’s behavior. Therefore, all the occurrences are in the Indicative in example (16). (16) – Qu’est-ce que vous en pensez ? Ce dossier prouve que le bonhomme vous suit (I) depuis longtemps, s’intéresse (I) à vos faits et gestes, à votre caractère. (Simenon 1952 : 107) ‘“What do you think about it? This dossier proves that the man has (I) followed [suit] you for a long time, has (I) taken [s’intéresse] an interest in facts about you and in your deeds, in your character.”’

In example (17), Maigret realizes that his British colleagues fail to follow Alain Lagrange in secret because the latter discovered that he was being shadowed. Therefore, the Indicative appears in this example. (17) [Alain] n’était pas si bête, en somme. Il avait dû s’apercevoir qu’il était (I) suivi. (Simenon 1952 : 136) ‘In short, Alain wasn’t so stupid. He realized that he was (I) [était] shadowed.’

In example (18), Maigret tries to draw Alain Lagrange out. Maigret, using the Indicative, frankly tells Alain that the police are aware of some things, but are unaware of others and need Alain’s help. (18) – Vois-tu, il y a des choses que tu sais (I) et que je ne sais (I) pas, mais il en est d’autres que je connais (I) et que tu ignores (I). (Simenon 1952 : 155) ‘“You see, you know (I) [sais] other things that I don’t know (I) [sais], but I know (I) [connais] other things that you don’t (I) [ignores].”’

In example (19), Maigret realizes that the deputy paid Baron Lagrange. The deputy does not want the Baron to publish documents that could compromise his reputation by rumor and scandal. Therefore, the Indicative appears in example (19).


(19) Il était plus que probable que le député, dont la femme réclamait (I) le divorce et qui allait (I) se trouver sans un sou, obligé de quitter son hôtel particulier de l’avenue Henri-Martin, monnayait (I) son influence. (Simenon 1952 : 176) ‘The deputy, whose wife asked (I) [réclamait] for a divorce and who was (I) going [allait] to remain penniless and to leave his private mansion on the avenue Henri-Martin, was (I) most likely to pay [monnayait] to uphold his reputation.’

Chapter 9 is an epilogue, in a sense, where the story deals with the investigation only indirectly. Maigret finishes his inquiry and brings the matter to court. He believes that Baron Lagrange pretends to be mad, but he assures his friends that he does not intend to expose Baron’s feigned madness. This chapter is short and, therefore, I expect a lower number of both moods. I expect a favoring of the Indicative because the investigation is closed. I also expect the Subjunctive because, Lagrange’s future remains unclear. Example (20) presents the use of the Subjunctive and the Indicative in the context of the friendly talk of Maigret with his friends. They do not know whether Maigret intends to expose Baron Lagrange’s madness, which explains the Subjunctive in their speech. However, everybody realizes that this talk has been organized just to hear if Maigret intends to expose Lagrange, which explains the appearance of the Indicative in the same example. (20) – Si François Lagrange tient le coup pendant un autre temps… – Il le tiendra ? – Il a assez peur pour ça. A moins que quelqu’un le force (S) dans ses retranchements… Pardon fixait intensément Maigret. C’était la raison du dîner, la question qu’il attendait (I) depuis longtemps de poser et qu’il ne faisait (I) qu’exprimer d’un regard. (Simenon 1952 : 187) ‘“If François Lagrange holds out in future…” “Will he be able to?” “He is afraid enough to do that. Unless somebody drives (S) [force] him into a corner…” Doctor Pardon intensely stared at Maigret. That question was the reason of the dinner: the question which the doctor had (I) expected [attendait] to ask for a long time and which he expressed (I) [faisait] only with a look.’

To validate my predictions, I have counted all the instances of the Indicative and the Subjunctive as they appear in the different stages of the story: in the outset, in the outcome and in the epilogue. Table 10 presents the results of the count for my predictions.


Table 10. From sign to text (Le revolver de Maigret): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for outset vs. outcome vs. epilogue Outset: (Chapters 1–3) Indicative Subjunctive Subjunctive (%) OR (without Epilogue) Z (without Epilogue)

246 73

Leitmotifs Outcome: (Chapters 4–8) 527 80 22.9% : 13.2% : 11.5% 1.955 : 1 3.738

Epilogue: (Chapter 9) 23 3

The data in Table 10 confirm my predictions. The rate of the Subjunctive is 22.9% in the outset of the story versus 13.2% used in the outcome of the story, and versus 11.5%, used in the epilogue. The odds ratio (OR) shows that the Subjunctive occurs in the conventional outset of the story twice as much as in the outcome. The Z-value (Z) in Table 10, exceeding the significance value of 2.054, shows that the distribution of both moods is not random. This distribution fits in with the emphasis on the character’s certainty or uncertainty, contributed to by the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive, respectively, throughout the story. The rate of the Subjunctive is higher in the outset, which is open to questions, but is lower at the outcome, which deals with already known information, and is the lowest in the epilogue where the investigation is closed. And vice versa, the rate of the Indicative drops in the outset of the story, but increases at its outcome and especially in the epilogue.

chapter 9

“From text to sign” approach

The advantage of sign-oriented theory is that potentially any linguistic unit can be a signal. The distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive may be motivated by the text itself which is considered to be sign in its own right. The major message of the text can be viewed as a signified, i.e. the meaning of the text-as-sign. The language of the text can be regarded as a signifier, i.e. the signal of the text-assign. As a result, one may expect that the meaning of the text would consistently motivate the choice of elements to be used in the text, their sequences and co-occurrences. Tobin (1990, 1993, 1995) calls an analysis of the language of the text, considered to be a single whole, the “from text to sign” approach. Consider Tobin (1995) on this matter: The message of the text, functioning as a meaning of the “text as sign” involves a conflation of elements including the characters, the plot, the themes and leitmotifs that all function together within the larger system of the text. This approach involves the hierarchical descending order from text to context to system and sign. (Tobin 1995: 63)

The example of the “from text to sign” approach is the analysis of the exceptional comparative form curiouser and curiouser in the text Alice in Wonderland (Carroll 1961: 9), discussed in Tobin (1990: 213–221). According to Tobin (ibid: 193–195), the synthetic form ‘X-er/X-est’ expressing the comparative and superlative degrees of English adjectives and adverbs is marked for the feature ‘semantic integrality’. This strategy represents a merging of [a] quality (‘small’) with another form indicating a comparative or superlative degree (‘-er/-est’) to create a new complex independent and integral unit in the form of a ‘single word’: (‘smaller/est’). (Tobin 1990: 193–194)

The periphrastic form ‘more + X/most + X’ is unmarked for semantic integrality. However, this strategy does not necessarily imply the absence of a merging of linguistic signs. Tobin further examines the choice of marked ‘X-er/X-est’ versus unmarked ‘more + X/most + X’ forms, as being motivated by the text itself. He makes the following prediction about their distribution in Alice in Wonderland:


The more integral a quality is to [the] text, the more suitable it is to collocate with linguistic signs marked for the distinctive feature of semantic integrality. (Tobin 1990: 213)

The adjective curious can be considered as the message of Alice in Wonderland. This is the most frequently used adjective. It can also be associated “with every major leitmotiv within the text […] either through the major characters in and out of Wonderland […], or the scenes or places of events […]” (Tobin 1990: 214). According to Tobin (ibid), curious “encompasses and embodies the very essence and spirit of the entire text itself: i.e. is INTEGRAL to the message of the text”. It is not surprising, therefore, that we find the ‘unusual’ form curiouser and curiouser marked for semantic integrality within this particular text […] (Tobin 1990: 214)

In this part, I postulate a textual message that can be associated with the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. I expect that this message will consistently motivate the choice of one mood over the other for a certain character or leitmotif throughout a text. I consider the relationship between a larger textual message and the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive in different texts of different styles and genres. The “from text to sign” approach is represented schematically in Figure 7. The texts that I have chosen for the “from text to sign” analysis are Antigone by Anouilh (1963) and the French translation of the Czech novel L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ by Kundera (1984).

9.1 Antigone A play by Jean Anouilh deals with the tragic destiny of those who try in vain to oppose power and are against the dominant order. The plot of the play unfolds LARGER TEXTUAL MESSAGE (Signifié) motivates the choice and the distribution

TEXTUAL ELEMENTS (Signifiant) (Indicative vs. Subjunctive)

Figure 7. “From text to sign” approach

Chapter 9. “From text to sign” apprach 183

in ancient Greece, in the city of Thebes. After the death of King Oedipus, his two sons, Eteocles and Polynices, kill each other in a battle at the walls of Thebes. Their deaths make their uncle Creon the king of the city. Creon orders Eteocles to be buried in honor because he protected the city and that Polynices be left to rot because he was a traitor. Anyone who dares bury him will be put to death. Antigone defies this ban and performs the funeral rites over the body of her brother. Creon’s Guards capture Antigone and take her to Creon who tries to save her and conceal her crime. He tries to show Antigone that her revolt is puerile and futile. Nevertheless, Antigone does not desist from her attempts to bury her brother and prefers to be executed. She hangs herself in the tomb, built into a wall, where Creon encloses her. Haemon, Creon’s son and Antigone’s fiancé, commits suicide beside Antigone. Creon’s wife, Eurydice, cuts her throat after she learns of Haemon’s death. At the end of the play, only Creon remains alive. I propose the following hypotheses concerning the play and the role of the opposition between the Indicative and the Subjunctive in this text. 1. The larger message of the text, viewed as a sign, deals with the tragic destiny of those who try to oppose power and are against the dominant order. 2. This message is based on the opposition between the revolt and the order, the confrontation and the compromise. 3. This message can be directly related to the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. 4. The Indicative, meaning Occurrence, can be associated with the notions of power, order, destiny, predetermination (i.e. the ultimate power). They imply the control over a situation and the inappropriateness of an alternative. The Subjunctive, meaning Alternative, can be associated with the notions of revolt, confrontation, opposition. They imply an alternative: a conflict between two opposite forces or ideas. Based on 1–4 above, I claim that the message of the text, viewed as a sign in its own right, motivates the distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive throughout the play in the following way: 1. The more the character is opposed to the dominant power, to the existing order and to the other characters, the more he/she uses the Subjunctive. 2. The more the character represents the power and the order, the more he/she uses the Indicative. Antigone is a young girl who revolts alone against King Creon, who represents the power and the order. Antigone’s tragedy is not only in that she rebels alone,


but also in that she has to confront all the characters of the play. Ginestier (1974) states the following on this matter: L’action est double : elle consiste pour Antigone à suivre cette ligne et pour les autres personnages à essayer de s’y opposer. Nous sommes prévenus dès le début que tous les efforts [sont] faits pour essayer d’empêcher Antigone d’obéir à la fatalité […]. (Ginestier 1974 : 68) ‘The action is double: it consists of Antigone following this line and of the other characters trying to stand in her way. We are told from the beginning that every effort is made to try to prevent Antigone from obeying the fate […].’

In the intention to bury her brother, Antigone is opposed, on the one hand, to her sister Ismene, to the Nurse and to Haemon. These characters are unwilling to help or to understand Antigone. On the other hand, she is opposed to Creon and to the Guards. These characters represent the dominant power and are overtly hostile to Antigone. In other words, Antigone embodies an alternative to all the characters of the play. Therefore, she often uses the Subjunctive in the play, as in examples (21)–(23). In example (21), Antigone declares to Ismene her intention to bury their brother in spite of Creon’s orders. Antigone clearly opposes herself to Creon. While his purpose is to put her to death, hers is to bury Polynices. (21) Antigone. – […] A chacun son rôle. Lui, il doit nous faire mourir, et nous, nous devons aller enterrer notre frère. C’est comme cela que ç’a été distribué. Qu’est-ce que tu veux que nous y fassions (S) ? (Anouilh 1963 : 647) ‘Antigone. […] He will do what he has to do, and we will do what we have to do. He is bound to put us to death. We are bound to go out and bury our brother. That’s the way it is. What do you think we can (S) do [fassions] to change it?’ (Anouilh 1958: 11)

In example (22), Antigone foresees her death and intends to tell her fiancé Haemon that she will never be able to marry him. She realizes that he does not understand her and asks him to leave. (22) Antigone. – […] Voilà. Maintenant, je vais te dire encore deux choses. Et quand je les aurai dites, il faudra que tu sortes (S) sans me questionner. Même si elles te paraissent extraordinaires, même si elles te font de la peine. Jure-le-moi. (Anouilh 1963 : 655) ‘Antigone. […] There! Now I have two things more to tell you. And when I have told them to you, you must (S) go [sortes] away instantly, without asking any questions. However strange they may seem to you. However much they may hurt you. Swear that you will!’ (Anouilh 1958: 18)


In example (23), Antigone, arrested for an attempt to bury Polynices, overtly opposes Creon. She declares her intention to go out again and to dig a grave for her brother. (23) Antigone. – Il faut que j’aille (S) enterrer mon frère que ces hommes ont découvert. (Anouilh 1963 : 667) ‘Antigone. I must (S) go [aille] and bury my brother. Those men uncovered him.’ (Anouilh 1958: 32)

Creon is the character who represents the power and the order, but who is unwilling to rule. Creon is always forced to resolve a moral dilemma. For example, he does not want to sentence Antigone to death, but he cannot help executing her. The Indicative appears in Creon’s speech when he embodies power and the dominant order, as in example (24). The Subjunctive appears when he is confronted with moral dilemmas, as in examples (25)–(26). In example (24), Creon shows with the Indicative that he takes seriously his reign as the king of Thebes and realizes the importance of order in the kingdom. (24) Créon. – […] Moi, je m’appelle seulement Créon, Dieu merci. J’ai mes deux pieds par terre, mes deux mains enfoncées dans mes poches et, puisque je suis (I) roi, j’ai résolu, avec moins d’ambition que ton père, de m’employer tout simplement à rendre l’ordre de ce monde un peu moins absurde, si c’est possible. Ce n’est même pas une aventure, c’est un métier pour tous les jours et pas toujours drôle, comme tous les métiers. Mais puisque je suis (I) là pour le faire, je vais le faire… (Anouilh 1963 : 666) ‘Creon. […] My name, thank God, is only Creon. I stand here with both feet firm on the ground; with both hands in my pockets; and I have decided that so long as I am (I) [suis] king – being less ambitious than your father was – I shall merely devote myself to introducing a little order into this absurd kingdom; if that is possible. Don’t think that being a king seems to me romantic. It is my trade; a trade a man has to work at every day; and like every other trade, it isn’t all beer and skittles. But since it is (I) [suis] my trade, I take it seriously.’ (Anouilh 1958: 30–31)

In example (25), Creon agrees by using the Subjunctive that his rule makes him choose monstrous means. He finds this dilemma contemptible. (25) Créon […]. – […] C’est ignoble, et je peux te le dire à toi, c’est bête, monstrueusement bête, mais il faut que tout Thèbes sente (S) cela pendant quelque temps. Tu penses bien que je l’aurais fait enterrer, ton frère, ne fût (S)-ce que pour l’hygiène ! Mais pour que les brutes que je gouverne (I) comprennent


(S), il faut que cela pue (S) le cadavre de Polynice dans toute la ville, pendant un mois. (Anouilh 1963 : 670) ‘Creon. […] It’s vile; and I can tell you what I wouldn’t tell anybody else: it’s stupid, monstrously stupid. But the people of Thebes have (S) got to have [sente] their noses rubbed into it a little longer. My God! If it was up to me, I should have had them bury your brother long ago as a mere matter (S) [fût] of public hygiene. I admit that what I am doing is childish. But if the featherheaded rabble I govern (I) [gouverne] are (S) to understand [comprennent] what’s what, that stench has (S) got to fill [pue] the town for a month!’ (Anouilh 1958: 34–35)

In example (26), Creon uses the Subjunctive to explain to Antigone his moral dilemma. He had no choice and he should have accepted the throne, though the duties of the reign weigh him down. (26) Créon […]. – Mais, bon Dieu ! Essaie de comprendre une minute, toi aussi, petite idiote ! J’ai bien essayé de te comprendre, moi. Il faut pourtant qu’il y en ait (S) qui disent oui. Il faut pourtant qu’il y en ait (S) qui mènent la barque. (Anouilh 1963 : 671) ‘Creon. But God in heaven! Won’t you try to understand me! I’m trying hard enough to understand you! There had (S) to be [ait] one man who said yes. Somebody had (S) to agree [ait] to captain the ship.’ (Anouilh 1958: 36)

Antigone’s tragedy is told by the Chorus whom Anouilh represents as a single figure. The Chorus-narrator introduces the characters in the prologue, summarizes the action and appears at the most important moments of the tragedy to comment on the action. It informs us about the fates of the characters at the end. In other words, the Chorus presents facts. It also embodies destiny and predetermination, i.e. the ultimate power. Therefore, it often uses the Indicative in the play, as in examples (27)–(28). In example (27), the Chorus introduces Haemon in the prologue. Haemon knows nothing yet about the oncoming tragedy, but the Chorus is already aware of its inevitability that it emphasizes with the Indicative. (27) Le Prologue. – […] [Hémon] ne savait pas qu’il ne devait (I) jamais exister de mari d’Antigone sur cette terre, et que ce titre princier lui donnait (I) seulement le droit de mourir. (Anouilh 1963 : 642) ‘Chorus. […] [Haemon] didn’t know, when he asked her, that the earth wasn’t (I) meant [devait] to hold a husband of Antigone, and that this princely distinction was (I) to earn [donnait] him no more than the right to die sooner than he might otherwise have done.’ (Anouilh 1958: 4)


In example (28), the Chorus appears at the very important moment of Antigone’s arrest to emphasize the nature of tragedy, based on the predetermination. The Chorus shows with the Indicative that in tragedy the action is inevitable, hopeless and known in advance. (28) Le Chœur. – […] Et puis, surtout, c’est reposant, la tragédie, parce qu’on sait qu’il n’y a (I) plus d’espoir, le sale espoir; qu’on est (I) pris, qu’on est (I) enfin pris comme un rat, avec tout le ciel sur son dos, et qu’on n’a (I) plus à crier – pas à gémir, non, pas à se plaindre – à gueuler à pleine voix ce qu’on avait (I) à dire, qu’on n’avait (I) jamais dit et qu’on ne savait (I) peut-être même pas encore. (Anouilh 1963 : 660) ‘Chorus. […] Tragedy is restful; and the reason is that hope, that foul, deceitful thing, has no part in it. There isn’t (I) [a] any hope. You’re (I) trapped [est pris]. The whole sky has fallen on you, and all you can do about it is (I) [a] to shout. Don’t mistake me: I said “shout”: I did not say groan, whimper, complain. That, you cannot do. But you can shout aloud; you can (I) get [avait] all those things said that you never thought you’d (I) be able to say [avait dit] – or never even knew (I) [savait] you had it in you to say.’ (Anouilh 1958: 24)

I claim that the Indicative and the Subjunctive are distributed non-randomly for the major characters throughout the play. I predict that Antigone, who embodies the strongest revolt and confrontation, favors the Subjunctive more than the other characters. Despite his power and assurance, Creon is dissatisfied with his methods of rule and with the dilemma regarding whether or not to execute Antigone. Moreover, Antigone’s death sentence turns his family against him. Therefore, I predict that Creon also favors the Subjunctive, but less than Antigone and more than the Chorus. The Chorus knows of the oncoming catastrophe beforehand because it personifies destiny and predetermination, i.e. the ultimate power. Therefore, I predict that the Chorus prefers the Indicative more than the other characters. The results of the count for my predictions are presented in Table 11. The data in Table 11 present the results of the distribution of the Subjunctive and the Indicative for the three major characters of the play: Antigone, Creon and the Chorus. The results are consistent with my predictions and indicate a preference in the distribution of both moods for specific characters. The data show that Antigone uses the Subjunctive the most, while the Chorus uses the Subjunctive the least in the play. Unlike the other characters, the Chorus is omniscient. It manifests the confidence of the situation and uses the Subjunctive only with respect to temporally displaced events. Therefore, I have chosen this character as a reference point with which the odds ratios for two other characters are compared. The odds ratios in Table 11 show that:


Table 11. From text to sign (Antigone): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for major characters Opposition to the power and to the dominant order Antigone Creon Chorus Indicative Subjunctive Subjunctive (%) OR (with the Chorus) Z

70 34 5.634

71 22 32.7% : 23.7% : 7.9% 3.594 4.118

58 5

a. The Subjunctive is more than five times as prevalent for the most conflicting and disobedient character of Antigone than for the Chorus. b. The Subjunctive is more than three times as prevalent for Creon, dissatisfied with the duties of his reign, than for the Chorus. The Z-value (Z) in Table 11, being above the significance value of 2.054, suggests that the observed distribution of the Subjunctive and the Indicative is not random. It is motivated by the larger message of the play, viewed as a sign in its own right.

9.2 L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être (The Unbearable Lightness of Being) I have also applied the “from text to sign” analysis for the French translation of the Czech novel L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ by Kundera (1984). The novel presents the life story of two couples during the military occupation of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet regime in 1968. Tomas, a determined libertine and a bright surgeon, meets Tereza, a waitress from a provincial Czech town. Tereza follows Tomas to Prague to escape from her vulgar mother. Tomas marries Tereza, but does not give up his mistresses. Unable to accept his love affairs, Tereza suffers from nightmares. In Prague, Tereza gets friendly with Tomas’s mistress and best friend Sabina, a talented painter, who finds Tereza a position as a photographer. The same year, the Soviet army occupies Prague and Tomas has to immigrate with Tereza to Switzerland. In Zurich, Tereza stays at home, her pictures being of no interest to Swiss publishers, while Tomas successfully keeps on working and womanizing. Tereza gets tired of her uninteresting and colorless life and returns to communist Prague. Tomas does not enjoy his freedom and follows Tereza. Sabina also escapes to Geneva where she becomes the mistress of Franz, a university professor. Despite their relationship, they misunderstand each other on some things. Their difference of opinion puts an end to


their relationship. Sabina moves to America. Franz leaves his family and large flat for a small apartment with one of his students. He remains an idealist and dies in Bangkok during a political march. In Prague, Tomas continues in his position of surgeon. He publishes a controversial article, which he is asked to retract under the threat of being fired. Tomas refuses and loses his job at the hospital. He first becomes a general practitioner at a country clinic, then a window washer and, lastly, a driver in a farm. Tereza still suffers from nightmares and after many arguments persuades Tomas to move to the countryside. Some time later, Tomas and Tereza are killed in a car accident. In each couple, Kundera contrasts a more flexible, open-minded character, a free individualist with a more intransigent, narrow-minded character. Based on this, I propose the following hypotheses concerning the novel and the role of the opposition between the Indicative and the Subjunctive in this text. 1. The larger message of the text, viewed as a sign, deals with extremes that meet only as a result of a compromise. By extremes, I mean the opposition between more flexible and more intransigent characters. 2. This message is manifested in the novel by the opposite notions of sexual freedom versus puritanical conduct, betrayal versus fidelity, private individualism versus public parades and marches, open-mindedness versus narrowmindedness. They either coexist in relative peace or are uncompromisingly conflicting. 3. The message of the text can be directly associated with the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. 4. The Indicative, meaning Occurrence, can be associated with the inappropriateness of any alternative. The inappropriateness of an alternative is manifested by the misunderstanding (a failure to understand each other) or the complete agreement (a definitive settlement of a conflict). The Subjunctive, meaning Alternative, can be associated with the consideration of an alternative point of view. An alternative is manifested by the conflict (the clash of alternative ideas) or the search for compromise (an attempt to settle a conflict by accepting alternative ideas). Based on 1–4 above, I predict that the message of the text, viewed as a sign in its own right, motivates the distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive throughout the novel in the following way: 1. The more the idea of open-mindedness and flexibility in the search for compromise from the conflict is represented in the novel, the more the Subjunctive is used.


2. The more the novel emphasizes misunderstanding because of intransigence, obstinacy and narrow-mindedness, the more the Indicative is used. The book is divided into seven parts, each of which is consistent in the distribution of both moods, motivated by the larger textual message. The first part deals with Tomas and his view of his relationship with Tereza. This part reveals a strong conflict between Tomas’s hedonistic life as a bachelor versus the image of a devoted husband that Tereza expects from him. It seems that no compromise could be reached in their relationship because Tomas does not intend to limit his sexual freedom. Despite these disagreements, Tomas and Tereza love each other, and the first part provides us with some examples of how Tomas searches for a compromise. Suffice to say that he sacrifices his bachelor life for the married life with Tereza. Another instance of his search for a compromise appears in the Subjunctive in example (29). After the divorce with his first wife, Tomas tries to arrange his life so that “no women could move in with a suitcase” (Kundera 1985: 10) nor sleep next to him. In example (29), Tomas suddenly breaks his rule and spends the night with Tereza before their marriage. (29) Comment se fait-il qu’il se soit (S) décidé si vite, alors qu’il avait hésité pendant près de quinze jours et qu’il ne lui avait même pas envoyé une carte postale ? Il en était lui-même surpris. Il agissait contre ses principes. (Kundera 1984 : 22) ‘How had (S) he come to make [se soit décidé] such a sudden decision when for nearly a fortnight he had wavered so much that he could not even bring himself to send a postcard asking her how she was? He himself was surprised. He had acted against his principles.’ (Kundera 1985: 10)

The second part of the novel also deals with the relationship between Tomas and Tereza, but from Tereza’s perspective. The conflict of Tereza with Tomas lies in the opposition between her spiritual life versus Tomas’s physical affairs. It may seem again that no compromise could be reached in her relationship with Tomas. However, Tereza also learns to compromise, to become closer to Tomas. Example (30) illustrates, with the Subjunctive, the dilemma of Tereza who is even ready to share the bodies of other women with Tomas. In other words, she is ready to agree to a polygamous life in order to eliminate the differences between them and, eventually, to supplant her rivals. (30) Elle se dit qu’il existait un moyen d’échapper à la condamnation qu’elle lisait dans ses infidélités : qu’il l’emmène (S) avec lui ! qu’il l’emmène (S) chez ses maîtresses ! Par ce détour, son corps redeviendrait peut-être unique et


premier entre tous. Son corps serait l’alter ego de Tomas, son second et son assistant. Ils s’étreignent, et elle lui murmure : “Je te les déshabillerai, je te les laverai dans la baignoire et je te les amènerai…” Elle voudrait qu’ils se transforment (S) tous deux en créatures hermaphrodites et que les corps des autres femmes deviennent (S) leur jouet commun. (Kundera 1984 : 96) ‘Then it occurred to her that there might be a way to avoid the condemnation she saw in Tomas’s infidelities: all he had to do was take (S) [emmène] her along, take (S) [emmène] her with him when he went to see his mistresses! Maybe then her body would again become the first and only among all others. Her body would become his second, his assistant, his alter ego. “I’ll undress them for you, give them a bath, bring them in to you…” she would whisper to him as they pressed together. She yearned for the two of them to merge (S) [se transforment] into a hermaphrodite. Then the other women’s bodies would (S) be [deviennent] their playthings.’ (Kundera 1985: 62)

Part 3 concerns the relationship of the other couple, Tomas’s mistress Sabina and her lover Franz, a married professor from Geneva and a perfect idealist. Though Sabina realizes that Franz is the best man she has ever met, the lovers do not reach a mutual understanding. Franz appreciates and values things that Sabina hates (parades and marches, music, darkness). And vice versa: Sabina admires things that Franz laughs at (cemeteries, Franz’s strength, betrayal). The climax of their misunderstanding is when Franz leaves his family to live with Sabina without knowing that Sabina has just decided to leave him. In this part, the narrator provides the whole lexicon of their misunderstandings. The narrator precedes this part with a comment. It represents Franz and Sabina as two edges of an abyss that are unable to meet because each one sees only his/her point of view. Therefore, this comment appears in the Indicative in example (31). (31) On peut sans doute mieux comprendre à présent l’abîme qui séparait (I) Sabina et Franz : il l’écoutait avidement parler de sa vie, et elle l’écoutait avec la même avidité. Ils comprenaient exactement le sens logique des mots qu’ils se disaient (I), mais sans entendre le murmure du fleuve sémantique qui coulait (I) à travers ces mots. (Kundera 1984 : 132) ‘Now, perhaps, we are in a better position to understand the abyss separating (I) [séparait] Sabina and Franz: he listened eagerly to the story of her life and she was equally eager to hear the story of his, but although they had a clear understanding of the logical meaning of the words they exchanged (I) [se disaient], they failed to hear the semantic susurrus of the river flowing (I) [coulait] through them.’ (Kundera 1985: 88)


Part 4 deals with Tereza after Tomas and she return from their emigration. The distaste for bodies persistently haunts Tereza. She wishes again she could become “the only body for Tomas” and could get rid of the terrible disappointment over her own body. In order to be released from the distaste for bodies and to understand better Tomas’s extramarital affairs, Tereza flirts with visitors of the bar she works in. However, she ends up by having unpleasant sex with an engineer. Example (32) implies Tereza’s dilemma between soul and body with the Subjunctive. Tereza is embarrassed and disgusted when she sees her body in the mirror because it fails to supplant other female bodies for Tomas. (32) Tereza est immobile, envoûtée devant le miroir, et regarde son corps comme s’il lui était étranger […] Il lui répugne. Il n’a pas eu la force de devenir pour Tomas le corps unique de sa vie. Ce corps l’a déçue, l’a trahie. Toute une nuit, elle a été contrainte à respirer dans les cheveux de Tomas l’odeur intime d’une autre. Elle a soudain envie de renvoyer ce corps comme une bonne. De ne plus être avec Tomas qu’une âme et de chasser le corps au loin pour qu’il se comporte (S) comme les autres corps féminins se comportent avec les corps mâles! Puisque son corps n’a pas su devenir le corps unique pour Tomas et qu’il a ainsi perdu la plus grande bataille de la vie de Tereza, eh bien ! qu’il s’en aille (S), ce corps ! (Kundera 1984 : 201–202) ‘Tereza stood bewitched before the mirror, staring at her body as if it were alien to her […] She felt disgusted by it. It lacked the power to become the only body in Tomas’s life. It had disappointed and deceived her. All that night she had had to inhale the aroma of another woman’s groin from his hair! Suddenly she longed to dismiss her body as one dismisses a servant: to stay on with Tomas only as a soul and send her body into the world to behave (S) [se comporte] as other female bodies behave with male bodies. If her body had failed to become the only body for Tomas, and thereby lost her the biggest battle of her life, it could (S) just as well go off [s’en aille] on its own!’ (Kundera 1985: 139–140)

Part 5 deals with Tomas after his return to Czechoslovakia. Throughout this part, Tomas is in a dilemma regarding whether to compromise or to uphold his principles. Tomas publishes a controversial article that criticizes the Czech communists who remained in power despite their country’s misfortunes and loss of independence. It was common practice in Communist Czechoslovakia to force authors of provocative articles to retract them against their will under the threat of dismissal. The chief surgeon of the hospital, in which Tomas works, suggests a socalled compromise decision. Tomas has to retract his article in order to continue to practice surgery. In this passage, Tomas notices that all his hospital colleagues


want him to sign the retraction. This possibility is presented with the Subjunctive in example (33). (33) Tomas comprit une chose étrange. Tout le monde lui souriait, tout le monde souhaitait qu’il rédigeât (S) sa rétractation, en se rétractant il aurait fait plaisir à tout le monde ! (Kundera 1984 : 262) ‘And suddenly Tomas grasped a strange fact: everyone was smiling at him, everyone wanted him to write (S) [rédigeât] the retraction; it would make everyone happy!’ (Kundera 1985: 182–183)

Tomas refuses to compromise and loses his position. The police find him working in a country clinic as a general practitioner. A man from the Ministry of the Interior suggests to Tomas a new so-called compromise decision. In order to return to his former workplace, Tomas has to sign a statement that would condemn the intellectuals and denounce the editors that have published his article. The Subjunctive in example (34) implies the new dilemma that Tomas faces. (34) L’homme du ministère de l’Intérieur marqua une pause et regarda Tomas dans les yeux. Tomas haussa les épaules. L’homme prit un ton rassurant : “Nous avons écarté cette idée. Quelle que soit (S) votre responsabilité, l’intérêt de la société exige que vous soyez (S) employé là où vos compétences sont utilisées au mieux. […] Vous êtes un grand spécialiste, docteur ! Personne ne peut exiger qu’un médecin comprenne (S) quelque chose à la politique. […] C’est pourquoi nous voudrions vous proposer le texte d’une déclaration que vous devriez, à notre avis, mettre à la disposition de la presse. Ensuite, nous ferions le nécessaire pour qu’elle soit (S) publiée le moment venu”, dit-il en tendant un papier à Tomas. (Kundera 1984 : 273) ‘The man from the Ministry of the Interior paused to look Tomas in the eye. Tomas shrugged his shoulders. The man assumed his comforting tone again. “We voted down the proposal. No matter (S) [soit] what your responsibility in the affair, society has an interest in seeing you use (S) [soyez] your abilities to the utmost. […] You are a fine specialist. Nobody requires a doctor to understand (S) [comprenne] politics. […] That’s why we’ve put together a sample statement for you. All you have to do is make it available to the press, and we’ll make sure it comes (S) out [soit publiée] at the proper time.” He handed Tomas a piece of paper.’ (Kundera 1985: 190)

In Part 6, the narrator gives the definition and the description of kitsch as a world that wears the mask of beauty. This world denies private individualism in favor of public joy, parades and marches. In this part, Sabina and Franz part company. Sabina’s position is anti-kitsch and she stubbornly paints against kitsch. She argues that in the world of kitsch, she could not survive for more than a week. Ex-


ample (35) shows with the Indicative that Sabina and Tereza reject the world of the Communist ideals (Soviet kitsch), at which they have the same associations of horror. (35) Il me semble que le sentiment que le kitsch soviétique éveillait (I) chez Sabina ressemble à l’effroi que Tereza éprouvait (I) dans le rêve où elle défilait (I) autour d’une piscine avec des femmes nues et où elle était (I) obligée de chanter de joyeuses chansons. (Kundera 1984 : 366) ‘The feeling Soviet kitsch evoked (I) [éveillait] in Sabina strikes me as very much like the horror Tereza experienced (I) [éprouvait] in her dream of being (I) marched [défilait] around a swimming pool with a group of naked women and forced (I) [était obligée] to sing cheerful songs with them […].’ (Kundera 1985: 253)

From the other point of view, kitsch is an idea shared by the masses, i.e. when the general agreement reigns and there is no need for a compromise. Franz has not been raised in a Communist country. Therefore, he shares kitschy ideas of parades and marches towards “brotherhood, equality, justice, happiness”. He accepts kitsch and naively believes that his ideals are the only possible ones. Example (36) describes with the Indicative the idealism of Franz who adores the Grand March, which is the political kitsch of leftists. (36) L’idée de la Grande Marche, dont Franz aime (I) à s’enivrer, c’est le kitsch politique qui unit (I) les gens de gauche de tous les temps et de toutes les tendances. La Grande Marche, c’est superbe cheminement en avant, le cheminement vers la fraternité, l’égalité, la justice, le bonheur […]. (Kundera 1984 : 373) ‘The fantasy of the Grand March that Franz was (I) [aime] so intoxicated by is the political kitsch joining (I) [unit] leftists of all times and tendencies. The Grand March is the splendid march on the road of brotherhood, equality, justice, happiness […].’ (Kundera 1985: 257)

In the last part, Tomas and Tereza find their ideal in the life on the countryside. Each of them has achieved his/her desires. Tereza is happy because Tomas finally decides to give up his love affairs. Moreover, he has become a driver on their farm, a representative of the lower rungs of society, and, therefore, no longer interests the police. He does not have to search for compromises any more. At the same time, Tereza feels guilty about Tomas’s misfortune and bad luck because she forced him to leave his career and to follow her everywhere. However, Tomas does not think he is unfortunate. On the contrary, he feels very happy because he is free of any mission and does not have to resolve any dilemma. Example (37) illustrates this point with the Indicative.


(37) – Tereza, dit Tomas, tu n’as pas remarqué que je suis (I) heureux ici ? – C’était ta mission, d’opérer ! – Mission, Tereza, c’est de la foutaise. Je n’ai pas de mission. Personne n’a de mission. Et c’est un énorme soulagement de s’apercevoir qu’on est (I) libre, qu’on n’a (I) pas de mission. » (Kundera 1984 : 454) ‘“Haven’t you noticed I’ve (I) been [suis] happy here, Tereza?” Tomas said. “Surgery was your mission,” she said. “Missions are stupid, Tereza. I have no mission. No one has. And it’s a terrific relief to realize you’re (I) [est] free, free of (I) [a] all missions.”’ (Kundera 1985: 313)

The novel ends when Tomas and Tereza are aware of their love and their happiness being together. On the one hand, Kundera shows that only by compromising, both characters have found happiness. Despite the contradictions dividing them, they try to understand each other, make decisions to get closer to each other throughout the novel. On the other hand, Sabina and Franz do not reach a mutual understanding, being too self-involved. As a result, Sabina is left alone. Franz moves in with one of his students who loves him simply, but Sabina remains his ideal for which he dies a meaningless death. The above examples give a general idea of the plot and the major characters of the novel. I predict that the message of the text, viewed as a sign, motivates the different distribution of the Subjunctive and the Indicative for the different parts of the novel. As previously stated, one character is opposed to the other in both couples: Tomas is the opposite of Tereza, and Sabina is the opposite of Franz. Yet, the two couples establish their relationships in different ways. Tomas and Tereza torment each other, but try to compromise and to resolve their conflicts of interests. Sabina and Franz pursue their own interests, believing that their own decisions are the only possible ones. Tomas and Tereza ultimately reach agreement and happiness, based on their mutual compromises and decide to stay together. Sabina and Franz fail to overcome misunderstanding and, remaining polar opposites, end their relations by a complete rupture. Based on this information, I predict that the parts that deal with a moral dilemma as a choice between two alternatives and the search for compromise favor the Subjunctive. The parts that deal with misunderstanding, intransigence or the definitive settlement of disagreements prefer the Indicative. Table 12 shows the results for my prediction. The data in Table 12 support my predictions and show that the Indicative and the Subjunctive are distributed differently for the different parts of the novel. The rate of the Subjunctive is 19.6% for Parts 1, 2, 4 and 5 that emphasize the search for compromise (+) versus 10.8% for Parts 3, 6 and 7 that deemphasize this


Table 12. From text to sign (L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être): Non-random distribution of the Indicative vs. the Subjunctive for different parts of the text Search for compromise (+) (Parts 1, 2, 4, 5) (–) (Parts 3, 6, 7) Indicative Subjunctive Subjunctive (%) OR Z

903 220

576 70 19.6% : 10.8% 2.005 : 1 4.724

search (–). The odds ratio (OR) indicates that the parts that embody the idea of the search for compromise favor the Subjunctive twice as much as the parts that deemphasize this idea. The Z-value (Z), exceeding the significance value of 2.054, shows that the observed preference of the Subjunctive for some parts and the Indicative for the others is not random. It is motivated by the larger message of the novel, viewed as a sign, which deals with the search for a compromise between two extremes.

9.3 Summary and conclusions To summarize, the “macro-level” analysis of texts of different styles and genres has shown that the Indicative and the Subjunctive consistently appear not only in individual sentences, but also within entire texts. The texts have been examined from bottom to top (“from sign to text” analysis) and from top to bottom (“from text to sign” analysis). In the first case, I have found that the Indicative and the Subjunctive consistently appeared in specific contexts that could be associated with messages, contributed to by the invariant meanings of both moods. The consistent appearance of the Indicative and the Subjunctive created a sense of coherence and cohesion in the examined texts. In the second case, the consistent favoring of the Subjunctive for specific contexts or characters, and the Indicative for the others has been motivated by a larger textual message that the writer intended to convey. The “macro-level” analysis of each text has been confirmed statistically. The data have shown that the distribution of the Indicative and the Subjunctive within these texts is not random, but is motivated by their invariant meanings.

part 5

The Subjunctive moods Diachronic analysis

Different frequencies of the Subjunctive forms The preceding chapters have dealt with two signs, the Indicative and the Subjunctive. The opposition of their invariant meanings forms the Occurrence System. As previously stated, the Indicative is the unmarked member, whereas the Subjunctive is the marked member of the pair. This means, among other things, that the Subjunctive is generally less frequent than the Indicative. Within the Subjunctive paradigm, the different forms are exploited with varied frequencies. The Subjunctive appears in four so-called tenses (hereafter, Subjunctive moods29): the morphologically simple Present and Imperfect Subjunctives and the morphologically complex Perfect and Pluperfect Subjunctives. The latter are formed with the auxiliaries (avoir ‘to have’ or être ‘to be’) in the Present 29. The Subjunctive forms are often ascribed the time meaning by analogy with the forms of the Indicative (cf. Grevisse 2001). However, unlike the Indicative, the Subjunctive is not used for time reference, since its meaning does not deal with the temporal actualization of an occurrence (cf. Guillaume 1970). Le mode subjonctif, dit Guillaume, ne marquant pas la distinction des époques est, à la vérité, un mode intemporel ; aussi les deux « temps » qu’il enferme, en sus des aspects qu’on retrouve dans tous les modes, ont-ils un tout autre objet que d’indiquer dans quel temps le fait considéré a lieu ; – ce dont ils seraient, du reste, incapables, le même « temps » du subjonctif pouvant se rapporter et au passé et au futur. (Barral 1980 : 59–60) ‘The Subjunctive mood, says Guillaume, does not make a distinction between periods because, to tell the truth, it is a timeless mood. Therefore, in addition to the aspects that one finds in all the moods, the two “tenses” of the Subjunctive have a quite different goal than to point out in which tense a considered fact takes place. Moreover, they would be unable to do that because the same Subjunctive “tense” can refer both to the past and to the future.’ Therefore, the terms present, perfect, imperfect, pluperfect and tense, attributed to the Subjunctive and paralleling the terms of the Indicative, seem inappropriate to me. I refer to the Subjunctive forms as the Subjunctive moods.


or the Imperfect Subjunctives, respectively, and the past participle. The Perfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives express anteriority to the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives. Compare examples (1)–(2) and (3)–(4):30 (1) Je veux qu’il vienne (PS). ‘I want him to come (PS) [vienne].’ (2) Je veux qu’il soit (PS) venu avant la nuit. ‘I want him to come (PS) [soit venu] before dark.’ (3) Je voulais qu’il vînt (IS). ‘I wanted him to come (IS) [vînt].’ (4) Je voulais qu’il fût (IS) venu avant la nuit. ‘I wanted him to come (IS) [fût venu] before dark.’

The Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives are not frequent and appear more in written than in spoken language. The Present and the Perfect Subjunctives appear more frequently both in spoken and in written language. Moreover, they seem to replace the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives even where the latter might be expected. Instead of examples (3)–(4) in writing, one uses the Subjunctive forms in speech, as in examples (5)–(6): (5) Je voulais qu’il vienne (PS). ‘I wanted him to come (PS) [vienne].’ (6) Je voulais qu’il soit (PS) venu avant la nuit. ‘I wanted him to come (PS) [soit venu] before dark.’

The disfavoring of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives has increased over time. This was due to the more general tendency of the disfavoring of the Subjunctive that developed from Old French to Contemporary French. Therefore, in this part, I propose the following: a. To establish a diachronic connection between the wider use of the Old French Subjunctive and its relative disfavoring, observed in Contemporary French.31 I show that this disfavoring has derived from the narrowing of the invariant 30. In all the examples, the Present Subjunctive is designated as (PS), and the Imperfect Subjunctive as (IS). All the capitalized or italicized forms are mine. 31. In order to emphasize differences between the Subjunctive moods, I will oppose two periods in the French language: the earliest (Old French) and the latest (Contemporary French). Although Old French was derived from Classical or rather from Vulgar Latin, starting with the Serments de Strasbourg ‘Oaths of Strasbourg’ (842 AD), one can speak about French in its own right. This was the most ancient written text in the French language that came down to us.

Part 5. The Subjunctive moods 199

meaning of the Subjunctive that occurred from Old French to Contemporary French. The broader meaning of the Old French Subjunctive allowed the encoder to use this mood in more linguistic contexts than the Contemporary French Subjunctive with its more narrow meaning. b. To compare the synchronic use of the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives versus the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives in Old French and in Contemporary French. I demonstrate that in each period, the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives are favored, and that the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives are disfavored. It is also shown that the use of these Subjunctive forms is motivated by their invariant meanings within the System of Relevance. This system deals with the relative relevance of an occurrence to the encoder or “to the main interest of the communication in process” (Diver 1969: 48). The distribution of these forms are validated both qualitatively by individual examples of their use and quantitatively by frequency counts.

chapter 10

Previous explanations for the use of the Subjunctive forms and for their disfavoring

10.1 Sentence-oriented explanations As previously stated, the Subjunctive appears most frequently in subordinate clauses. It is a well-known fact that the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives in the subordinate clause are favored after the past tenses in the main clause. On the contrary, the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives are favored after the present or the future tenses. Therefore, it is often argued that the so-called Subjunctive tenses follow the tense of the main clause. Their use is attributed to the rules of the sequence of tenses (cf. Brunot 1965: 780–783, 794–801; Damourette & Pichon 1968[1936]: 608–636; Gougenheim 1969: 218–219; Grevisse 1961: 286–289, 2001: 1268–1274; Imbs 1968: 207–216; Regula 1966a: 217–219; Togeby 1982: 266– 272; Wagner & Pinchon 1962: 326–329, 556–557). Consider Togeby (1982) on this matter: La règle classique pour la concordance des temps au subjonctif consiste à faire suivre d’une part le présent et le futur du présent du subjonctif : il faut, il faudra qu’il le fasse, et d’autre part le passé simple, l’imparfait et le conditionnel de l’imparfait du subjonctif : il fallut, il fallait, il faudrait qu’il le fît. (Togeby 1982 : 266) ‘The traditional rule of the sequence of tenses in the subjunctive consists, on the one hand, of requiring the present and the future to be followed by the present subjunctive: il faut, il faudra qu’il le fasse ‘it is necessary, it will be necessary that he do it’, and on the other hand, the preterit (or past historic), the imperfect and the conditional to be followed by the imperfect subjunctive: il fallut, il fallait, il faudrait qu’il le fît ‘it was necessary, it would be necessary that he did it’.’

Grevisse (2001) pronounces on this matter as follows: Dans la langue parlée, et même dans la langue écrite ordinaire, le subjonctif a trois temps : le présent, le passé et le passé surcomposé.32 […] 32. This mood is formed by the Perfect Subjunctive followed by the past participle, as in the following example: « Avant qu’il ait eu compris, on lui a passé les menottes » (Mauger 1968 : 241) – ‘Before he had understood [ait eu compris] anything, they handcuffed him.’


Dans la langue écrite, et surtout dans la langue littéraire, le subjonctif a quatre temps : le présent, le passé, l’imparfait et le plus-que-parfait. Leur usage est régi par ce que l’on appelle la concordance des temps. […] a) Lorsque le verbe principal est au présent ou au futur, […] on met le présent quand le subjonctif exprime un fait qui est simultané ou postérieur par rapport au verbe principal; on met le passé quand il s’agit d’un fait antérieur. b) C’est quand le verbe principal est au passé qu’il y a un usage propre à la langue écrite. Elle emploie l’imparfait quand le subjonctif exprime un fait qui est simultané ou postérieur par rapport au verbe principal […] Elle emploie le plus-que-parfait quand le subjonctif exprime un fait qui est antérieur par rapport au verbe principal. (Grevisse 2001 : 1268–1270) ‘In speech, and even in common writing, the subjunctive has three tenses: the present, the past and the complex present perfect. In writing, and especially in literary language, the subjunctive has four tenses: the present, the past, the imperfect and the pluperfect. Their use is governed by what one calls the sequence of tenses. a) When the main verb is in the present or in the future, […] one uses the present when the subjunctive expresses a simultaneous or posterior fact to the main verb; one uses the past when the question is of an anterior fact. b) It is when the main verb is in the past that the use is inherent in writing. One employs the imperfect when the subjunctive expresses a simultaneous or posterior fact to the main verb […] One employs the pluperfect when the subjunctive expresses an anterior fact to the main verb.’

However, Grevisse (2001) acknowledges that these rules are not rigid and automatic, especially as for the use of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives. He states the following on this matter: Si l’on observe l’usage d’aujourd’hui, on doit rejeter comme inexactes deux opinions opposées : l’imparfait et le plus-que-parfait du subjonctif sont morts ; – leur emploi est obligatoire selon les règles données ci-dessus. (Grevisse 2001 : 1270) ‘If one observes today’s usage, one must reject two opposite opinions as being inaccurate: that the imperfect and the pluperfect subjunctives are no longer used and that their use is required by the above rules [of the sequence of tenses].’

Sentence-oriented grammar explains the disfavoring of the Contemporary French Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctives from speech as follows: 1. The morphological or syntactic explanation: it is argued (cf. Chevalier et al. 1973: 361–362) that the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives have been disfavored because of (a) the complex and inconsistent rules of the sequence of tenses or (b) the complex forms of both moods.

Chapter 10. Previous explanations for the use of the Subjunctive forms 203

This explanation is problematic because: 1. The data show (cf. Damourette & Pichon 1968[1936]: 636–659) that the rules of the sequence of tenses were never followed strictly. However, the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives have been disfavored in spoken language since Modern French. 2. The Old French Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctives were even more complex than their Contemporary French counterparts are. The Old French moods were simplified by phonetic and morphologic changes that took place during the transition from Old to Contemporary French. However, the disfavoring of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives has occurred only since Modern French. Moreover, one may conjecture that they appeared very frequently in spoken Old French because written medieval texts that came down to us were originally passed orally.

Brunot & Bruneau (1969: 340), Grevisse (2001: 1271) believe that the infrequent use of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives has caused their disfavoring. Consider Grevisse on this matter: […] c’est la rareté de ces formes qui les rend surprenantes […]. – C’est aussi leur rareté qui les rend difficiles, et non leur difficulté qui les rend rares. (Grevisse 2001 : 1271) ‘[…] the rareness of these forms makes them surprising [...]. – It is also their rareness that makes them complex, and not their complexity that makes them rare.’

This statement is even more questionable because it does not explain why the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives became infrequent. Moreover, the cognitive complexity of these moods is accounted for by their infrequent use, and not vice versa. I propose that the disfavoring of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives in French is determined by the cognitive complexity of their invariant meanings. 2. The euphony explanation: it is argued that the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives are disfavored because they are less harmonious than the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives are. This explanation is also problematic because:

1. The data show (cf. Harmer 1954: 276–285) that the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives can appear in the same text, paragraph and sentence with the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives. 2. French has forms that are phonetically identical with the forms of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives and that do not seem disharmonious. The comment of Harmer in this connection is as follows:


Crevasse [‘crack’, ‘crevice’] as a noun is unimpeachable; as a form of the verb crever [‘to burst’; ‘to exhaust’] it is open to objection. Limace [‘slug’] and grimace [‘grimace’] are acceptable whereas limasse [‘he/she might have filed’] and grimasse [‘he/she might have made up’] might be rejected. Emacié [‘emaciated’] gives no offence; aimassiez [‘you might have loved’] is derided […]. Moreover, the forms of the imperfect indicative, in the first and second persons plural, are, in the case of all second conjugation verbs (finissions [‘we were finishing’], finissiez [‘you were finishing’]), identical, phonetically, with those of the present and the imperfect subjunctive; yet no one seems to regard them as lacking in euphony. (Harmer 1954: 286)

I demonstrate that the disfavoring of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives in French is not determined by their sound patterns, but by the complexity of their invariant meanings. The more complex the meanings of the Subjunctive forms are, the less there are contexts where these forms can be used. The analysis of Damourette & Pichon (1968[1936]: 608–659) deserves special attention because of their unifying comment on the difference between the Subjunctive moods (Damourette & Pichon’s mœufs). They provide a detailed analysis of the use of the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives. According to Damourette & Pichon, the difference between these mœufs and the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives depends on whom their use can be attributed. If it is attributed to the subject of the verb in the main clause (Damourette & Pichon’s protagoniste), one uses the Imperfect or the Pluperfect Subjunctives. If it is attributed to the speaker (Damourette & Pichon’s locuteur), one replaces the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives by their Present and Perfect counterparts. This point can be illustrated by the set of above examples (3)–(6). (3) Je voulais qu’il vînt (IS). ‘I wanted him to come (IS) [vînt].’ (4) Je voulais qu’il fût (IS) venu avant la nuit. ‘I wanted him to come (IS) [fût venu] before dark.’ (5) Je voulais qu’il vienne (PS). ‘I wanted him to come (PS) [vienne].’ (6) Je voulais qu’il soit (PS) venu avant la nuit. ‘I wanted him to come (PS) [soit venu] before dark.’

Consider Damourette & Pichon (ibid) on this matter: La signification du tour qui nous occupe apparaît donc clairement. Il sert à maintenir la notion de succession chronologique des moments du temps dans le système de référence ayant pour centre le locuteur présentement parlant, par oppo-

Chapter 10. Previous explanations for the use of the Subjunctive forms 205

sition au tour ordinaire qui abandonne les indications temporelles à l’actualité centrée sur le protagoniste. (Damourette & Pichon 1968[1936] : 657) ‘The meaning of the expression that interests us [the use of the Present or the Perfect Subjunctives] is, therefore, clear. It is used to maintain the notion of chronological succession of tenses in the reference system, centered on the locuteurspeaker, in opposition to the regular expression [the use of the Imperfect or the Pluperfect Subjunctives] that “sacrifices” the indications of tenses in favor of the reality, centered on the protagonist-subject.’

Despite that, Damourette & Pichon follow the sentence-oriented approach. They focus their analysis on sentences in which they look for the meanings of the Subjunctive mœufs.

10.2 Sign-oriented explanation The sign-oriented research on the Subjunctive moods includes the works of Barral (1965, 1978), Guillaume (1970), Moignet (1959), Stefanini (1992: 221–228). Barral (1980) proposes the most thorough sign-oriented study of the Subjunctive moods, made within the framework of the Guillaumean theory of Psychomechanics. Following Guillaume (1970: 29–37), Barral postulates the time image as being the invariant meaning of the system of French moods. This means that every verbal form can be used as nominal (the infinitive and the participles), subjunctive, or indicative mood. The meaning of each mood is determined by its position on the axis of the time image of the chronogenesis. In the Guillaumean theory, the chronogenesis represents the development of a mental operation towards its actualization. Following Guillaume, Barral ascribes the Subjunctive to the second stage of the chronogenesis where an event is represented as an idea rather than an occurrence. The Subjunctive moods convey two kinds of values: valeurs temporelles ‘temporal values’ and valeurs modales ‘modal values’. Barral (1965) pronounces on this matter as follows: Imprécis et incomplet quant aux temps, mode de ce qui n’est pas actualisé, le subjonctif à la différence de l’indicatif, présente dans ses temps à la fois les aspects temporels et ces aspects modaux. (Barral 1965 : 45) ‘Being imprecise and incomplete as for the tenses, being a mood of what is not actualized, the Subjunctive, unlike the Indicative, combines the temporal aspects and the modal aspects in its tenses at the same time.’

According to Barral, temporal values mean the difference between the prospective and the retrospective development of the time image of the chronogenesis. The former represents the development from the past to the future. It is expressed by


the Present Subjunctive. The latter represents the development from the future to the past. It is expressed by the Imperfect Subjunctive. By modal values, Barral means the way in which the event has been conceived. He distinguishes between the Present Subjunctive that expresses realizable and possible events and the Imperfect Subjunctive that expresses realized and unreal events. Barral (1965) states the following on this point: Opposés l’un à l’autre, les deux aspects apparaissent : le présent, prospectif, laisse la possibilité d’envisager le procès comme actualisable : il sera employé pour traduire ce qui est possible ou éventuel ; le second, rétrospectif, ne permet plus d’envisager une actualisation et sera employé pour traduire ce qui est irréel ou impossible. (Barral 1965 : 64) ‘Two aspects appear, opposed to each other: the present, prospective, allows us to consider the action to be one that can be actualized: it will be used to express what is possible or eventual; the second, retrospective, does not allow us any longer to consider actualization and will be used to express what is unreal or impossible.’

Barral confirms his research by multiple examples and detailed explanations. According to Barral (1980: 600–601), the disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive is due to the incompatibility between its values in the subordinate clause and those of the Conditional in the main clause. This incompatibility appeared in Modern French and represented two opposite directions of the development of the time image. The Imperfect Subjunctive embodied the retrospective time image towards the past and the unreal. It became incompatible with the Conditional that embodied the prospective time image towards the future and the potential. Thus, the Imperfect Subjunctive was replaced by the Present Subjunctive first in speech and then in writing. On the one hand, this change resulted in the simplified use of the Subjunctive moods in speech, i.e. without the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives. On the other hand, both these moods remain in writing where they express nuances that are more subtle than those expressed by the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives.

chapter 11

The analysis of the general disfavoring of the Subjunctive

The meaning Occurrence that the Indicative has within the Occurrence System has not undergone radical changes over time, whereas the meaning of the Subjunctive has differed from period to period. My hypothesis is that the Old French Subjunctive expressed any kind of an uncertain possibility, perceived by the encoder. It implied some question about the realization of a considered occurrence. Therefore, I postulate Occurrence Questioned as being the meaning of the Old French Subjunctive. Paraphrasing Diver (cited in Penhallurick 1981: 353–354), I could say that Occurrence Questioned means an occurrence represented as a possibility, in the loosest sense of the term. Figure 8 represents the Old French Occurrence System. As previously postulated, the Contemporary French Subjunctive within the same Occurrence System implies a more specific alternative of which the encoder is aware. Therefore, it has a narrower meaning Alternative to Occurrence. Figure 9 represents the Contemporary French Occurrence System. In his unpublished analysis of the Latin Subjunctive, Diver argued “that the Latin subjunctive indicated occurrence questioned while the indicative signaled only occurrence” (Kirsner 2004: 15). According to Kirsner, by occurrence questioned, Diver meant raising “the possibility of alternatives – of the event not happening or happening differently” (ibid). Diver’s analysis confirms Semantic substance

Signal

Meaning

Nature of an occurrence taking place

Indicative Subjunctive

Occurrence Occurrence Questioned

Figure 8. The Indicative vs. the Subjunctive within the Old French Occurrence System Semantic substance

Signal

Meaning

Nature of an occurrence taking place

Indicative Subjunctive

Occurrence Alternative to Occurrence

Figure 9. The Indicative vs. the Subjunctive within the Contemporary French Occurrence System


the meanings that I have postulated for both periods. On the one hand, the Old French Subjunctive was derived from the Latin Subjunctive and, being close to it, meant the broader possibility. On the other hand, the Contemporary French Subjunctive has a narrower meaning that implies the consideration of a specific alternative.

11.1 The losses of the Contemporary French Subjunctive As follows from Figures 8 and 9, the diachronic changes that the Subjunctive underwent represent the opposition between different kinds of possibilities, perceived by the encoder. One can speak about the narrowing of the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive that developed over time. The broader uncertainty that the Subjunctive designated in Old French included questioned (doubtful, possible, hypothetical) occurrences. It has been narrowed down from a questioned occurrence to a more specific alternative to an occurrence that the Subjunctive designates in Contemporary French. The relationship between the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive in Old French and in Contemporary French is represented by Figure 10. The meaning Occurrence Questioned explains the use of the Old French Subjunctive in different messages that emphasize an uncertain possibility of an occurrence in the loosest sense of the term: 1. While expressing one’s opinion The broader meaning of the Old French Subjunctive motivated its use in subordinate clauses, introduced by the verbs cuidier, croire ‘to believe’ or penser ‘to think’. Besides the use after negated and interrogated verbs of opinion, as in Contemporary French, the Subjunctive was also frequent after the aforementioned verbs, used affirmatively, especially if they did not appear in the first person or in

OCCURRENCE ALTERNATIVE

QUESTIONED Figure 10. Diachronic meaningful contrast of two Subjunctive meanings: Occurrence Questioned vs. Alternative

Chapter 11. The analysis of the general disfavoring of the Subjunctive 209

the present tense. The first person pronoun refers to the encoder directly, thereby emphasizing his/her responsibility for the expressed opinion about an occurrence, whereas the second and the third person pronouns do not. The present tense expresses occurrences that are the most relevant to the encoder. The past and the future tenses express occurrences that are no longer a reality or have not yet become a reality and, therefore, are relatively irrelevant to the encoder. In the broad sense, these linguistic contexts deemphasize the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence and, therefore, correlate with the Subjunctive. Example (7), taken from Le roman de Tristan ‘The Romance of Tristan’ by Béroul (1972), illustrates this point. It presents the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause, introduced by the verb quidier ‘to believe’ in the third person plural. In this example, nobles of King Mark find the beheaded body of another noble and believe that Tristan has killed him. The Subjunctive expresses their uncertainty. (7)

Bien quident ce ait (S) fait Tristran (Béroul 1972 : 53, lines 1717–1718) Dont li rois fist faire le ban. ‘They think that it has (S) been done [ait fait] by Tristan, Whose king had set the price for his head.’

In Contemporary French, the Subjunctive emphasizes a more specific alternative and, therefore, appears only after negated and interrogated “verba sentiendi et declarandi” (Harmer 1954: 209). The affirmation of these verbs is used to state one’s opinion without emphasizing its alternative and, therefore, is followed by the Indicative. This point is illustrated by example (8), taken from the short story Toujours l’inattendu arrive ‘The Unexpected Always Happens’ by Maurois (1946). It presents the Indicative in the subordinate clause, introduced by the verb penser ‘to think’, used in the third person and in the Passé Simple (the Past Simple). In this example, the narrator, using the Indicative, shows that what a woman thinks about a man is true rather than implies the alternative that her opinion about him might be wrong. (8) A ce moment elle vit arriver le fonctionnaire du Quai d’Orsay qu’accompagnait un homme vêtu, comme elle, de noir. C’était évidemment MoreauVerneuil. […] Elle pensa qu’il avait (I) un air de bonté et de distinction. (Maurois 1946 : 159) ‘As she was speaking, she saw the official from the Quai d’Orsay accompanied by a man dressed in black, evidently Monsieur Moreau-Verneuil […] She thought he had (I) [avait] an air of distinction and generosity.’ (Maurois 1949: 340)


2. While reporting questions The broader meaning of the Old French Subjunctive also motivated its use in indirect questions, introduced by negation of verbs that expressed interrogation such as comprendre ‘to understand’, demander ‘to ask’, savoir ‘to know’. Besides a question, introduced in the subordinate clause, negation of these verbs in the main clause emphasized the general encoder’s uncertainty, expressed by the Subjunctive. This point is illustrated by example (9), taken from La chanson de Roland ‘The Song of Roland’ (1937). It presents the Subjunctive in the indirect question, introduced by a negated verb savoir ‘to know’. In this example, count Roland looks at his dying friend Olivier and does not know what to do. The Subjunctive expresses his uncertainty. (9) ‘Deus,’ dist li quens, ‘or ne sai jo que face (S). (La chanson de Roland 1937, laisse 148, line 1982) ‘God,’ said the count, ‘I do not know what I shall (S) do [face]. (The Song of Roland 1937: 71, laisse 148)

As previously stated, the Contemporary French Subjunctive also implies that the encoder does not commit to how the subject perceives an occurrence. However, the encoder’s uncertainty concerns a specific alternative to the realization of an occurrence. Therefore, this mood has disappeared from indirect questions in favor of the Indicative. The latter is more appropriate to show that the subject is at the center of the encoder’s attention. Example (10), taken from the novel L’Arrache-Cœur ‘Heartsnatcher’ by Vian (1962), illustrates this claim. It presents the Indicative in the indirect question, introduced by a negated verb savoir ‘to know’. In this example, a mother believes that catastrophes or accidents, which her anxious consciousness has invented, can really happen to her children. Therefore, the Indicative appears in example (10). (10) On ne sait pas ce qu’on peut (I) trouver sous une pierre. Des cloportes venimeux, des araignées dont la piqûre est mortelle, des cancrelats qui peuvent véhiculer des maladies coloniales contre lesquelles il n’y a pas de remèdes connus… (Vian 1962 : 163) ‘You do not know what you can (I) [peut] find under a stone: venomous wood-louses, spiders whose bite is mortal, cockroaches that may carry colonial diseases against which there is no available remedy…’

3. While hypothesizing an occurrence The broader meaning of the Old French Subjunctive motivated its use in conditional sentences. The outcome of such an occurrence is uncertain or not specific, because it is dependent on conditions. Since the Subjunctive in conditional sen-


tences emphasized just a questioned occurrence, it was frequent in Old French texts. Example (11), taken from Le Fraisne ‘The Ash Tree’ by Marie de France (1974), illustrates this claim. It presents the use of the Imperfect Subjunctive both in the protasis (antecedent) and in the apodosis (consequent) of the conditional statement. In this example, the bride’s mother thinks about a poor girl whom a handsome knight has left to marry her noble daughter. This girl shows no sign of grief or anger and the mother thinks that if she had known this girl before, she would never have destroyed her happiness. Therefore, the Subjunctive appears in this example. Pensa et dist, s’ele seüst (S) (Marie de France 1974 : 69, lines 395–398) la maniere e que ele fust, ja pur sa fille ne perdist (S) ne son seignur ne li tolist (S). ‘She thought, and said, if she had (S) known [seüst] (Marie de France 1996, lines 395–398) What she was like, this other one, She’d (S) never have lost out [perdist] to her daughter – She’d (S) not have taken [tolist] her lord and master.’ (11)

However, in Contemporary French texts, and even more in speech, the Subjunctive appears infrequently in conditional sentences. It is used only to emphasize a more specific alternative. This point is illustrated by example (12), taken from Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936). It presents one of the infrequent instances of the Imperfect Subjunctive, used in the conditional statement in the same way as it was used in Old French. I subsequently show that the Imperfect Subjunctive’s invariant meaning Less Relevant contributes to this use. In example (12), the Imperfect Subjunctive emphasizes a specific alternative to unreal or counterfactual occurrences that might have taken place, but did not. In this example, Costals’s female admirer, who loves him unrequitedly, believes that she would have suffered even more, if she had not left Paris. However, this alternative is less relevant because the girl returned home to where she thought that she would not suffer because of Costals. Therefore, the narrator presents these occurrences in the Imperfect Subjunctive. (12) Mais elle ne regrettait pas d’être revenue à Saint-Léonard. Elle pressentait que, si elle fût (IS) restée à Paris, il [Costals] eût (IS) continué à la faire souffrir. (Montherlant 1936 : 115) ‘But she did not regret having come back to Saint-Leonard. She had a feeling that, if she had (IS) stayed [fût restée] in Paris, Costals might (IS) have kept on [eût continué] hurting her.’


4. While making a comparison of inequality The broader meaning of the Old French Subjunctive motivated its use in sentences that expressed a difference between occurrences. In Old French, an occurrence in the main clause was usually compared with its possible counterpart in the subordinate clause that implied the general encoder’s uncertainty about the outcome of the latter. This claim is illustrated by example (13), taken from Le roman de Tristan by Béroul (1972). It presents the use of the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause after the expression of comparison in the main clause. In this example, Governal, a tutor and companion of Tristan, wants to kill a noble who has betrayed Tristan and Isolde. Although this revenge means to Governal more than the possibility to be executed, its outcome remains uncertain. Therefore, it appears in the Subjunctive in example (13). (13)

Cil qui desoz l’arbre s’estait (Béroul 1972 : 53, lines 1700–1703) Vit le venir, hardi l’atent; Dit mex veut estre mis au vent Que il de lui n’ait (S) la venjance ‘The former [Governal], under the tree, Saw him coming and waited for him resolutely; He told himself he would like rather to be scattered to the wind Than to lose (S) [ait] the chance for revenge’

In Contemporary French, a compared counterpart is considered a fact rather than an uncertain possibility, which favors the Indicative. This point is illustrated by example (14), taken from Les Caves du Vatican ‘The Vatican Cellars’ by Gide (1975) [1922]. It presents the use of the Indicative in the subordinate clause, introduced by the expression of comparison of inequality. This example is a newspaper report of the discovery of the body of a man about fifty. Though the victim’s name is unpublished, Julius infers the identity of his brother-in-law from this report. He knows for sure that the latter looked old for his age. Therefore, this fact appears in the Indicative in example (14). (14) La police […] a découvert, cet après-midi, […] le corps de la victime à laquelle appartient sans doute la veste retrouvée hier soir dans un wagon. C’est un homme d’apparence modeste, d’une cinquantaine d’années environ. (Il paraissait plus âgé qu’il n’était (I).) (Gide 1975 [1922] : 208) ‘This afternoon, […] the police discovered the body of a man […] – no doubt the unfortunate owner of the coat that was found last night in a railway carriage. The body is that of a man of about fifty years of age. [He looked older than he really was (I) [était].]’ (Gide 1952: 205)


11.2 The loss of the Old French Subjunctive The evolution of the French Subjunctive does not consist only in the fact that some of its uses disappeared, and others were strongly restricted to specific linguistic contexts. García (1985) states the following on evolutionary language changes: There is no reason why, simultaneously with the loss of certain exploitations, others may not arise, as the relation of the form vis-à-vis other forms in the language changes. (García 1985: 300)

The same is relevant to the use of the Contemporary French Subjunctive for subjective comment, i.e. with emotional and appreciative expressions. As previously stated, the Old French Subjunctive implied many general options, present with the loosest possibility of an occurrence. The scope of the meaning of the Contemporary French Subjunctive narrowed down to the implication of a more specific alternative. As a result, the number of messages with the Subjunctive reduced in Contemporary French. However, the meaning Alternative to Occurrence allows the encoder to emphasize his/her subjective attitude towards occurrences. In Contemporary French, the focus of the subjective representation of an occurrence is on the possibility of an alternative outcome. A comparison of the actual outcome of an occurrence with its possible alternative arouses a particular feeling: happiness versus sadness, contentment versus discontent, etc. This explains the preferred use of the Subjunctive to comment on occurrences, as in example (15), taken from Le Petit Prince by Saint-Exupéry (1946). It presents the Subjunctive in the subordinate clause following an appreciative expression in the main clause. In this example, the little prince congratulates the narrator for the successful repairing of the airplane. The prince realizes that the narrator might not have found the engine trouble. The Subjunctive appears in example (15) to imply this alternative. (15) – Je suis content que tu aies (S) trouvé ce qui manquait à ta machine. (SaintExupéry 1946 : 84) ‘“I am glad that you have (S) found [aies trouvé] what was the matter with your engine,” he said.’ (Saint-Exupéry 1943: 82)

In Old French, the focus of the subjective representation of occurrences was on their factual result. Therefore, the Indicative was preferred to comment on an occurrence. This point is illustrated by example (16), taken from Le roman de Tristan by Béroul (1972). It presents the use of the Indicative after the expression of regret. In this example, Tristan regrets his faithful dog having found him in the forest where he and Isolde hide from King Mark. Tristan decides to kill the dog because his instinctive barking might reveal their hiding place. In example (16),


the Indicative emphasizes the fact that the dog has found his master rather than implies an alternative that he might not have found them. (16)

Et poise m’en, por sa franchise, (Béroul 1972 : 49, lines 1565–1566) Que il la mort a (I) ici quise. ‘I regret that such a noble animal Has (I) come here to meet [a quise] the death.’

Examples (7)–(16) show the diachronic narrowing of the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive. In Old French, it designated a broader uncertainty of an occurrence, whereas in Contemporary French it designates a more specific alternative to an occurrence. The broader the meaning of the Subjunctive is, the more there are linguistic contexts where this mood can be used. And vice versa, the narrower its meaning is, the less there are contexts where it can be used. Therefore, I expect the drop in the relative frequency of the Contemporary French Subjunctive. Examples (17)–(18) show that the Old French Subjunctive is replaced with the infinitive in Contemporary French. These examples have been taken from La vie de Saint Alexis ‘The Life of Saint Alexis’ (1967), written in the 11th century, and from its modern translation (1983). (17) […] molt criem que ne t’en perde (S). (La vie de Saint Alexis 1967 : 3, line 60) ‘I should greatly risk losing (S) [perde] you.’ (The Life of Saint Alexis 2006[1997], line 60) (18) […] je crains fort de te perdre (infinitive). (La vie de Saint Alexis 1983 : 28, line 60) ‘I should greatly risk losing (S) [perde] you.’ (The Life of Saint Alexis 2006[1997], line 60)

This leads to the following prediction: Prediction 1: The Old French Subjunctive was more frequent than its Contemporary French counterpart was.

The counts have been made on the texts of La chanson de Roland (1937), written in the 11th century, Le roman de Tristan by Béroul (1972), written in the 12th century, and their modern translations: La chanson de Roland (1872) and Les Tristan en vers (1999).33 The results of the count for Prediction 1 are presented in Table 13. 33. La chanson de Roland (1872) is the most recent translation that I have found. This is a Modern French text rather than a Contemporary French one. However, in the late 19th century, Modern French comparatively little differed from Contemporary French, which allows me to use this text in my count.


Table 13. The predominance of the Old French Subjunctive over the Contemporary French Subjunctive OF Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive Totals Cross Totals (%) Ratio

311 70 381

Roland

CF

OF

189 239 18 193 207 432 63.3% : 36.7% 1.73 : 1

Tristan

CF 220 44 264

As previously stated, the paradigm of the Perfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives includes the auxiliaries avoir ‘to have’ or être ‘to be’ in the Present or the Imperfect Subjunctives, respectively. Therefore, in Table 13, I have grouped the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives under “Present Subjunctive”, against the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives, grouped under “Imperfect Subjunctive”. I refer hereafter to the Present and the Perfect Subjunctives as the Present Subjunctive, and to the Imperfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives as the Imperfect Subjunctive, unless I present their invariant meanings. The data in Table 13 come from a sample of more than one thousand two hundred instances of the Old and Contemporary French Subjunctives. These data confirm my prediction. One can see that in each text the instances of the Old French Subjunctive (OF), meaning the broad uncertainty of an occurrence, prevail over those of Contemporary French (CF), meaning a more specific alternative to an occurrence. The cross totals rate of the Old French Subjunctive is 63.3% versus 36.7% of the Contemporary French Subjunctive, i.e. about twice as prevalent as the latter. The opposition between different kinds of possibilities, designated by the Subjunctive in both periods, accounts for the following: a. The synchronic favoring of the Old French Subjunctive for the expressions of reported opinion, indirect questions, conditional sentences and comparisons of inequality to emphasize an uncertain possibility of an occurrence in the loosest sense of the term. b. The synchronic favoring of the Contemporary French Subjunctive for the expressions of subjective comment to emphasize an alternative to an occurrence.

chapter 12

The analysis of the disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive

The data in Table 13 exemplify the disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive that developed over time. The comparison of the results for the Old and the Contemporary French Subjunctives reveals that the difference in frequency of the Present Subjunctive is not very great in both texts. It amounts to 311 versus 189 for La chanson de Roland and 239 versus 220 for Le roman de Tristan by Béroul. The Imperfect Subjunctive, however, drops much more in frequency than its Present counterpart does. Its drop amounts to 70 versus 18 for La chanson de Roland and 193 versus 44 for Le roman de Tristan by Béroul. The drop of the Imperfect Subjunctive is illustrated by examples (19)–(20), taken from Le roman de Tristan by Béroul (1972), written in the 12th century, and its modern translation Les Tristan en vers (1999). Both instances of the Old French Imperfect Subjunctive are replaced with the Conditional and the Present Subjunctive, respectively, in Contemporary French. (19)

Mot est cortois li rois, mi sire; (Béroul 1972 : 3, lines 86–88) Ja nu pensast (IS) nul jor par lui Q’en cest pensé fuson (IS) andui. ‘My spouse the King is generous. He would (IS) never have imagined [pensast] Us betraying (IS) [fuson] him.’

(20)

Le roi mon époux est généreux. (Les Tristan en vers, 1999) Il n’aurait (Conditional) jamais imaginé de lui-même Que nous puissions (PS) le trahir. ‘My spouse the King is generous. He would (Conditional) never have imagined [aurait imaginé] Us betraying (PS) [puissions] him.’

The results of the drop in the frequency of the Imperfect Subjunctive, against that of the Present Subjunctive are presented in Table 14 from period to period. The data in Table 14 show the diachronic drop in the frequency of the Imperfect Subjunctive, compared to that of the Present Subjunctive. One can see that the cross totals rate of the Old French Imperfect Subjunctive is 32.3% versus


Table 14. The diachronic disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive OF Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive OR of IS Drop Cross Totals IS (%) Z

Roland

311 70

CF

OF

189 18

239 193

2.363

Tristan

CF 220 44

4.038 32.3% : 13.2% 6.657

13.2% in Contemporary French. The odds ratio (OR of IS Drop) for La chanson de Roland shows that in the modern translation of this text the frequency of the Imperfect Subjunctive decreased twice as much as that of the Present Subjunctive. The odds ratio for Le roman de Tristan by Béroul shows an even more significant drop in the frequency of the Imperfect Subjunctive. It decreased four times as much as the frequency of the Present Subjunctive. The Z-value (Z) for both odds ratios considerably exceeds the significance value of 2.054. This allows me to claim that the observed disfavoring is unlikely to have happened by chance, but rather is motivated by the invariant meaning of the Imperfect Subjunctive. However, the opposition between the invariant meanings Occurrence Questioned and Alternative to Occurrence of the Subjunctive in Old and in Contemporary French, respectively, does not explain the stronger diachronic disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive. The reasons for this disfavoring should obviously be sought in another semantic domain. As previously stated, signals in Columbia School theory are very often simultaneously interlocked with more than one semantic domain. For example, the conjugated verbs in French designate the nature of an occurrence taking place as well as the number and the person of entities that contribute to its realization. I contend that the distinction between the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives underlies the encoder’s attitude towards the relevance of an occurrence or its alternative. The Subjunctive moods constitute a system called by Diver (1969: 47– 48) the System of Relevance. Its semantic substance “tells us to what extent this particular lexical meaning (the event), together with whatever lexical and grammatical meanings may be associated with it (the “clause” of the traditional grammar), is relevant to the main interest of the communication in process” (Diver 1969: 48). I postulate that within the System of Relevance, both in Old and in Contemporary French, the Present Subjunctive implies that the possibility that an occurrence or its alternative might take place is more relevant to the encoder. Therefore, I postulate its meaning as More Relevant. The Imperfect Subjunctive implies in both periods that the possibility that an occurrence or its alternative might take

Chapter 12. The analysis of the disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive 219

Semantic substance

Signal

Meaning

Degree of relevance of an occurrence taking place

Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive

More Relevant Less Relevant

Figure 11. The Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives within the French System of Relevance

place is less relevant to the encoder. Therefore, I postulate its meaning as Less Relevant.34 As previously stated, the complex Perfect and the Pluperfect Subjunctives add an aspectual nuance to the oppositional relationship between the simple Present and Imperfect Subjunctives. The Perfect Subjunctive means More Relevant, Before, whereas the Pluperfect Subjunctive means Less Relevant, Before. However, this fact is not significant for my analysis. Figure 11 represents the French System of Relevance. The larger system that explains the distribution of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives is actually the interlock of two grammatical systems: the Occurrence System and the System of Relevance. Within this Occurrence-Relevance interlock, the invariant meaning of the Present Subjunctive is Occurrence Questioned, More Relevant for Old French versus Alternative, More Relevant for Contemporary French. The invariant meaning of the Imperfect Subjunctive is Occurrence Questioned, Less Relevant for Old French versus Alternative, Less Relevant for Contemporary French. Figures 12 and 13 represent the Occurrence-Relevance interlock for Old and Contemporary French. The next step of the analysis is to show that in both periods the Present Subjunctive emphasizes the relevance of the possibility that an occurrence or its alternative might take place, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive deemphasizes such relevance. I demonstrate that the meaning More Relevant contributes to communicated messages when the Present Subjunctive is used, while the meaning 34. Within the Subjunctive paradigm, both in Old and in Contemporary French, the distinction between the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives is maintained by thematic vowels /a, u, i/, called “thèmes-voyelles” by Guillaume (1970: 71–72). For example, in Old French: chant: chant-a-sse; dorme:dorm-i-sse; doie:de-ü-sse, and in Contemporary French: que je chante:que je chant-a-sse; que je dorme:que je dorm-i-sse; que je doive:que je d-u-sse ‘I might sing/have sung; I might sleep/have slept; I might have to/have had to’. These thematic vowels may be viewed as signs in their own right, similar to the epenthetic /n/ that appear in Hebrew in existential particles or in verbs + n + clitic pronouns such as yesh-n-o ‘he has’ as opposed to yesh ‘there is’ or yesh lo ‘he has’. Tobin (1982) hypothesized the epenthetic /n/ as a linguistic sign with the meaning focusser. This form draws the decoder’s attention to a possessor. It is possible that the thematic vowels /a, u, i/ may convey the same invariant meaning for the French Imperfect Subjunctive. They would focus the decoder’s attention on the fact that the following information is Less Relevant.


Semantic Substance 1

Meaning 1

Signal

Meaning 2

Occurrence Questioned

Present Subjunctive

More Relevant

Nature of Occurrence


Degree of Relevance Occurrence Questioned

Imperfect Subjunctive

Less Relevant

Figure 12. The Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives within the Old French Occurrence-Relevance interlock Semantic Substance 1

Meaning 1

Signal

Meaning 2

Alternative to Occurrence

Present Subjunctive

More Relevant

Nature of Occurrence


Degree of Relevance Alternative to Occurrence

Imperfect Subjunctive

Less Relevant

Figure 13. The Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives within the Contemporary French Occurrence-Relevance interlock

Less Relevant contributes to communicated messages when the Imperfect Subjunctive is used. The analysis is done at the level of individual examples and complete texts for both Old and Contemporary French. Individual examples have been grouped into two communicative strategies that illustrate the encoders’ preference for the routine choice of the invariant meanings to contribute to particular messages. These strategies characterize the exploitation of the Subjunctive moods in their correlation with the signs of different language systems that contextually share the semantic domain of the System of Relevance. The basic strategies are postulated as follows: 1. The Relevance opposition is used to emphasize or to deemphasize the encoder’s concern regarding the possibility that an occurrence or its alternative might take place. By concern, I mean the direct involvement of the encoder in the realization of an occurrence or an interest that the encoder shows in its outcome. I show that the encoder uses the Present Subjunctive to emphasize the more relevant possibility, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive is used to emphasize the less relevant possibility.

Chapter 12. The analysis of the disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive 221

2. The Relevance opposition is used to distinguish between the real possibility that an occurrence or its alternative may take place and the hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual) possibility that an occurrence or its alternative might take place. I demonstrate that the encoder uses the Present Subjunctive to emphasize the real possibility, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive is used to emphasize the hypothetical possibility. The latter means that an occurrence or its alternative exist only as an imaginary idea or might have taken place had conditions been different.

chapter 13

The Subjunctive moods in Old French “Micro-level” analysis

The following data represent the “micro-level” analysis of individual examples of the use of the Subjunctive moods in Old French. One can infer from the Present Subjunctive that the possibility that an occurrence might take place is more relevant to the encoder, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive deemphasizes such relevance.

13.1 The System of Relevance and the encoder’s concern As previously stated, an occurrence is relevant to the encoder, if the latter is involved directly in its realization or manifests his/her interest in its possible outcome. The use of the Subjunctive moods in the set of examples (21)–(26) emphasizes different degrees of relevance of possible occurrences. Examples (21)–(22) represent the use of the Old French Subjunctive in relative clauses to attribute different degrees of relevance to their antecedents. Example (21) has been taken from La Vie de Saint Alexis ‘The Life of Saint Alexis’ (1967). In this example, an old married couple is praying to God to send them a son who might be their successor. The possible birth of a son is of great significance to the old couple, which explains the appearance of the Present Subjunctive in this example. (21) “E ! reis celestes, par ton comandement (La vie de Saint Alexis 1967 : 2, lines 24–25) Enfant nos done qui seit (PS) a ton talent !” ‘“Oh, king of heaven, if it be thy will, (The Life of Saint Alexis 2006[1997], lines 24–25) Give us a child who will (PS) be [seit] pleasing in thy sight.”’

Example (22) has been taken from La chanson de Roland. In this example, Charlemagne looks for a messenger who would carry back his answer to the Saracen King Marsilla. The Emperor attaches minor importance to who might carry back the answer. Therefore, he asks the Council of barons to choose a messenger, mak-


ing them responsible for their choice, which explains the appearance of the Imperfect Subjunctive in his speech. (22) ‘Car m’eslisez un barun de ma marche, (La chanson de Roland 1937, laisse 20, lines 275–276) Qu’a Marsiliun me portast (IS) mun message.’ ‘‘choose me now a baron of my march, (The Song of Roland 1937: 10, laisse 20) who may (IS) carry [portast] my message to Marsiliun.’’

Examples (23)–(24) represent the use of the Old French Subjunctive to express one’s opinion. Example (23) has been taken from La chanson de Roland. In this example, Charlemagne does not realize at first that Alde, Roland’s fiancée, falls and dies of sorrow, and not just faints after she learns that Roland is dead. The Emperor is one of the central characters of the song. Therefore, his opinion is more relevant to the narrator. Moreover, the heroic death of Roland, being the climax of the poem, does not lose its significance even at the end of the song when Charlemagne announces it to Alde. As a result, the narrator uses the Present Subjunctive in this particular context. (23) Quidet li reis que el se seit (PS) pasmee (La chanson de Roland 1937, laisse 269, line 3724) ‘The King thinks that she has (PS) fainted [se seit pasmee].’ (The Song of Roland 1937: 131, laisse 269)

Example (24) has been taken from Le Fraisne ‘The Ash Tree’ by Marie de France (1974). This example deals with a porter of an abbey who saw a cloth in a tree and thought that it was stolen goods. The porter is a peripheral character who will not appear further in the text. His opinion, hence, does not acquire the same relevance as the opinion of Charlemagne in the above example. Therefore, it is expressed by the Imperfect Subjunctive in example (24). (24) quida qu’alkuns les eüst (IS) pris (Marie de France 1974 : 61, lines 185–186) en larrecin e iluec mis ‘He supposed it was some loot, seized (IS) [eüst pris] (Marie de France 1996, lines 185–186) By a robber, hidden (IS) [eüst mis] in the trees.’

Examples (25)–(26) represent the use of the Old French Subjunctive to express a possible outcome. In example (25), taken from La Vie de Saint Alexis ‘The Life of Saint Alexis’ (1967), Alexis’s old father decides it is time for his son to marry. The marriage is very important to the old father who wishes descendants. Therefore, his intention is expressed by the Present Subjunctive in this example.

Chapter 13. The Subjunctive moods in Old French 225

(25) Or vuelt que prenget (PS) moillier a son vivant (La vie de Saint Alexis 1967 : 2, line 39) ‘He wished him to take (PS) [prenget] a wife while he himself still lived’ (The Life of Saint Alexis, 2006[1997] line 39)

Example (26) has been taken from Le Fraisne ‘The Ash Tree’ by Marie de France (1974). In this example, vassal knights try to persuade their lord, a handsome knight, to marry a noble girl. However, the knight falls in love with a poor girl whom he does not want to abandon. He disregards his vassals and their advice, which are expressed, therefore, by the Imperfect Subjunctive. Soventes feiz a lui parlerent (Marie de France 1974 : 66, lines 326–328) qu’une gentil femme espusast (IS) e de cele se delivrast (IS) ‘Often and often they spoke to advance (Marie de France 1996, lines 326– 328) Their plan: he’ll (IS) take [espousast] some noble bride, And send (IS) [se delivrast] this other from his side’

(26)

Examples (21)–(26) show that in different ways the invariant meanings of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives contribute to express the encoder’s involvement in an occurrence. The Present Subjunctive is used to emphasize the relevance of a possible occurrence to the encoder, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive is used to deemphasize any such relevance. An occurrence acquires significance when it concerns the encoder directly. An occurrence loses its significance when the encoder deemphasizes his/her own concern in favor of that of others. Therefore, I postulate that the Subjunctive moods correlate with the System of Person. Within this system, García (1975: 61–71) opposes the meanings Speaker for the first person, Hearer for the second person and Other for the third person. Both moods were used with different subjects. However, the first person pronoun refers to the encoder directly, whereas the second and the third person pronouns do not. The second person pronouns imply the encoder indirectly, indicating rather his/her audience, and the third person pronouns do it even less. Based on this, one would expect that the Imperfect Subjunctive would be preferred for the third person subjects, whereas the Present Subjunctive would be preferred for the first person subjects. Examples (27)–(28), taken from Le roman de Tristan by Béroul (1972), illustrate the use of the verb avoir ‘to have’ with the first and the third person subjects. The more relevant occurrence, directly implying the encoder, appears in the Present Subjunctive following the first person subject. The less relevant occurrence that does not imply the encoder directly appears in the Imperfect Subjunctives following the third person subject.


(27)

Li rois pense que par folie, (Béroul 1972 : 1, lines 20–21) Sire Tristran, vos aie (PS) amé ‘The king thinks that I was (PS) madly in love [aie amé] with you, Sir Tristan.’

(28)

Or voi je bien, si con je quit, (Béroul 1972 : 4–5, lines 123–125) Qu’il ne voudroient que o lui Eüst (IS) home de son linage. ‘But, in my opinion, I see their game very well: They would not like him To have (IS) [eüst] somebody from his lineage on his sides.’

From this, my prediction follows: Prediction 2: in Old French, the third person subject favors the Imperfect Subjunctive more than the first person subject does.

The counts have been made on the texts of La chanson de Roland (1937), written in the 11th century, and Le roman de Tristan by Béroul (1972), written in the 12th century. The results of the count for Prediction 2 are presented in Table 15. The data in Table 15 are based on a sample of more than six hundred instances of the use of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives with the first (Speaker) and the third (Other) person subjects. These results are consistent with my prediction. While the odds ratio of La chanson de Roland reveals a lower correlation, the text by Béroul shows that the third person subject meaning Other favors the Imperfect Subjunctive twice as often as the first person subject meaning Speaker. The instances of the Imperfect Subjunctive in the first person subject were imposed by the plot of both texts to emphasize the gap between the reality and the hypothetical possibility, perceived by the subject. Though the cross totals Z-value is slightly lower that the significance value of 2.054, according to a standard Z-table (cf. Muller 1992: 175), the probability p of the Z-value 2.048 is 0.0406. By conventional criteria, this value may be considered statistically signifiTable 15. Correlation of the Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives with first vs. third person subjects Other Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive OR Cross Totals IS (%) Cross Totals Z

Roland

204 51

Speaker

Other

32 6

159 149

1.333

Tristan

48 21 2.142

88.1% : 11.9% 2.048

Speaker


cant. It means that in 96 cases out of 100 the calculated result is not within the realm of chance. Moreover, the cross totals rate of the Imperfect Subjunctive following the third person subject confirms the credibility of the count, being 88.1% against 11.9%, used after the first person subject. One can clearly see that in both texts the difference in the frequency of the use of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives is even more manifested for the first person subjects. It may be argued that the data, as they appear in Table 15, contradict my prediction. According to Table 15, both the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives occur more with the third person subject than with the first person subject. Yet, my prediction was that the odds of the Imperfect Subjunctive following the third person subject would prevail over the odds of the Present Subjunctive. This prediction has been confirmed by the data. For example, the odds of the Imperfect Subjunctive after the third person subject for the text by Béroul (“Tristan” in Table 15) is (149/21) = 7.095. The odds of the Present Subjunctive is (159/48) = 3.313, i.e. in 2.142 times less than that of the Imperfect Subjunctive. The count shows that in this text, the third person subject is followed by the Imperfect Subjunctive twice as much as by the Present Subjunctive. Both Subjunctive moods are preferred for the third person subject because a typical narrative deals with other people. Even if it is important to or deals with an encoder, the latter is surrounded by many other significant or incidental characters. Therefore, in typical literary texts, the third person subject is usually more frequent than the other forms. The distributional skewing reveals a correlation between the Subjunctive moods and the System of Person that contextually shares the semantic substance of the System of Relevance. The skewing has supported my prediction about the preference of the Old French Imperfect Subjunctive, meaning Occurrence Questioned, Less Relevant, for the third person subject, meaning Other.

13.2 The System of Relevance and the possibility of an occurrence The relevance that the encoder attributes to an occurrence also depends on its chances of taking place. If the possibility of an occurrence is real, i.e. if it is likely to take place in the near future, its degree of relevance is higher to the encoder. If this possibility is hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual), i.e. if it exists only in the mind and is unlikely to be achieved, its degree of relevance is typically lower. The hypothetical occurrence may be more important to the encoder, but this is rather untypical. Therefore, in Old French, the real possibility is emphasized with the Present Subjunctive, whereas the hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual) possibility is emphasized with the Imperfect Subjunctive. This point is illustrated by the set of examples (29)–(32).


Examples (29)–(30) represent the use of the Old French Subjunctive to express an anticipated occurrence whose outcome is not yet attained and, therefore, uncertain. Example (29) has been taken from La chanson de Roland. The Frankish army is hurrying to help Roland who is fighting against the Saracen army far outnumbering his own. Though the situation of Roland is critical, the Franks expect to rescue him. Therefore, their expectation is expressed by the Present Subjunctive in example (29). (29) E prient Deu qu’il guarisset Rollant (La chanson de Roland 1937, laisse 138, lines 1837–1838) Josque il vengent (PS) el camp cumunement ‘and they pray to God that he will save Roland (The Song of Roland 1937: 66, laisse 138) untill they come (PS) [vengent] together in the field.’

Example (30) has been taken from Le Fraisne ‘The Ash Tree’ by Marie de France (1974). This example presents the use of the Imperfect Subjunctive to show that the occurrence is hypothetical, i.e. less relevant to the encoder and to the narrative. The irrelevance of the occurrence can be inferred from the wider context of the manuscript that deals with a noble girl who ultimately finds happiness with a handsome knight despite many difficulties. The mother abandons her for fear of being slandered by neighbors. Many years later, the mother recognizes her in a poor girl whom a handsome knight has to give up, thinking she is poor, to marry her sister. However, he loves the “poor” girl, and not the rich one, to whom he is getting married. As soon as their father realizes this mistake, he agrees to the divorce of the knight and the second daughter and allows the knight then to marry the first daughter. The irrelevance of the problem is expressed by the Imperfect Subjunctive in example (30). (30)

grant joie nus a Deus donee, (Marie de France 1974 : 73, lines 498–499) ainz que li pechiez fust (IS) doublez. ‘God has given us joy rejoiced, (Marie de France 1996, lines 498–499) Before we could (IS) [fust] double the treachery.’

In examples (31)–(32), both taken from La chanson de Roland, the Old French Subjunctive expresses a hypothesis. In example (31), the narrator assumes that the Saracen admiral Balaguer might be a good baron, a very loyal vassal in the army of Charlemagne. However, this is only the narrator’s impression that presents an unreal, imaginary occurrence. Therefore, this occurrence is expressed by the Imperfect Subjunctive in example (31).


(31) Fust (IS) chrestiens, asez oust (IS) barnet. (La chanson de Roland 1937, laisse 72, line 899) ‘were (IS) [fust] he christian, he would (IS) have been [oüst] a good baron.’ (The Song of Roland 1937: 33, laisse 72)

Example (32) deals with the Emir Baligant who comes to Saragossa to fight against Charlemagne. Baligant promises that the Frankish Emperor will be killed, if he does not ask for mercy nor abjures his faith. Contrary to expectations, Baligant’s hypothesis is not expressed by the Indicative. The Emir realizes that Charlemagne is a worthy adversary who will not surrender so simply. He is uncertain whether Charlemagne might beg to be pardoned and to renounce Christianity. Therefore, his uncertainty is expressed by the Present Subjunctive instead of being expressed by the Indicative. (32) S’en ma mercit ne se culzt (PS) a mes piez (La chanson de Roland 1937, laisse 193, lines 2682–2684) E ne guerpisset (PS) la lei de chrestiens, Jo li toldrai la corune del chef.’ ‘and if he does not ask me for mercy and lie (PS) [se culzt] at my feet, (The Song of Roland 1937: 95, laisse 193) and if he does not give (PS) up [guerpisset] the law of the christians, I shall take the crown from his head.’

Examples (29)–(32) show that the invariant meanings of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives contribute to distinguish between the real and the imaginary possibility that an occurrence might take place. The Present Subjunctive is used for uncertain, but possible occurrences, while the Imperfect Subjunctive is used for hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual) occurrences. The examples of the “micro-level” analysis show that the choice between the Subjunctive moods in Old French is motivated by their invariant meanings within the System of Relevance. This system serves for different strategies. The Present Subjunctive means Occurrence Questioned, More Relevant. It is used to emphasize the relevance of possible occurrences to the encoder. They are more relevant either because their realization concerns the encoder directly or because it is related to the realm of the possible. The Imperfect Subjunctive means Occurrence Questioned, Less Relevant. It is used for possible occurrences that are less relevant to the encoder because he/she is not directly involved in their realization or because this realization lies in the realm of the hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual).

chapter 14

The Subjunctive moods in Old French “Macro-level” analysis

The “micro-level” analysis has shown that the use of the Subjunctive moods in Old French is not arbitrary but influenced by the opposition of their invariant meanings. I expect that these invariant meanings will motivate preferences in the distribution of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives throughout texts, just as they did at the level of individual examples. To validate their distribution, I apply the “from sign to text” approach, suggested by Tobin (1990, 1993, 1995) for the analysis of the distribution of linguistic forms within the “macro-level” discourse. The “from sign to text” approach deals with the consistent use of linguistic forms in particular contexts within a text. Following Tobin (1995: 62, 189), the principles of the “from sign to text” approach for the use of the Subjunctive moods within a text can be formulated as follows: 1. The distribution of the Present versus the Imperfect Subjunctives is not random, but is skewed along thematic lines within specific texts. 2. The choice and preference of one or the other Subjunctive mood can be related directly to particular themes, specific characters and recurring or related events in the plot or subplots within the text. 3. Therefore, the choice and preference of one Subjunctive mood over the other can serve as part of a larger system of textual coherence and cohesion. The text I have chosen for the “from sign to text” analysis is La chanson de Roland (1937), written approximately in the second half of the 11th century. This Old French epic poem deals with heroic deeds of Emperor Charlemagne of France and his nephew, count Roland. The plot of the poem develops as follows: Terrified of the army of Franks, the Muslim King of Spain Marsilla sends messengers to Charlemagne to ask that the Franks leave Spain. Marsilla proposes his treasure, his conversion to Christianity and peace for that. Following the advice of his nephew Roland, Charlemagne chooses a respected Frankish baron, Roland’s stepfather Ganelon as the messenger who should pass the answer to Marsilla. This angers Ganelon. Moreover, he hates and envies the respect that Roland has won from the Emperor. Therefore, Ganelon decides to plot revenge and conspires with the Saracens against Roland. Ganelon proposes that they attack Roland who will


lead the rearguard of Charlemagne’s army on its way back to France. The plan works and Roland, surprised by the enemy, fights against the army outnumbering his own. Roland’s best friend Olivier advises him to blow his horn to call Charlemagne for help. First, Roland claims that they can easily fight against the pagans. Roland subsequently realizes that they need help. Though Charlemagne cannot save his vassals, Roland sounds the horn so that the Emperor could learn that they have been betrayed and that their death must be avenged. Roland and his soldiers die heroically and Charlemagne finds only dead bodies on the battlefield. The Franks pursue the pagans and fight against the army of Baligant, Emir of Babylon, who has arrived to help Marsilla. Charlemagne kills Baligant and routs the pagans. On his return to France, Charlemagne sentences the betrayer Ganelon to death. I assume that the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives are distributed non-randomly in the poem. The invariant meaning Occurrence Questioned, More Relevant of the Present Subjunctive contributes to messages, associated with the literal or figurative closeness of occurrences to the encoder. The invariant meaning Occurrence Questioned, Less Relevant of the Imperfect Subjunctive contributes to messages, emphasizing the literal or figurative remoteness of occurrences from the encoder. Based on the plot and on the invariant meanings of both moods, I predict the following systematic distribution of the Present versus the Imperfect Subjunctives: 1. The more relevant the character or the event are to the main interest of the poem, the more the Present Subjunctive is used. 2. The less relevant the character or the event are to the main interest of the poem, the more the Imperfect Subjunctive is used. Just as other medieval epic poems, La chanson de Roland is composed of verse paragraphs of varying length called laisses. I have divided the poem into four leitmotifs of different numbers of laisses. They can be associated with the degree of relevance of the characters or events of the poem to the encoder. The first leitmotif, which includes laisses 1–79, deals with Ganelon’s betrayal. In this section, the Muslim King Marsilla takes council with his vassals about how to deceive Charlemagne and not to be destroyed by his army. They decide to send a messenger who should convince Charlemagne of the Saracens’ loyalty and good faith. Charlemagne, tempted by this false peace promise, takes council with his barons. Count Roland does not believe Marsilla’s peace offer and strongly supports the war until final victory. His stepfather Ganelon advises to consider the Saracens’ offer seriously. Therefore, Roland proposes him as a messenger to be sent to Mar-


silla. Ganelon decides to plot with the Saracens to betray Roland and suggests them the plan of an ambush. Starting with the first section, the encoder makes a clear-cut distinction between the sides in the struggle of the good against the evil with which the whole poem deals. Since the narrator represents Christianity and sides with the Christians, Charlemagne, Roland and Roland’s best friend Olivier embody the good, whereas the Saracens and the traitor Ganelon embody the evil. Therefore, one would expect that the characters that embody the evil would be less relevant to the narrator than the characters that embody the good. Based on the meanings of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives, I predict the following distribution: Prediction 3: the Imperfect Subjunctive is favored for the characters that embody the evil more than for the characters that embody the good.

The results of the count for Prediction 3 are presented in Table 16. Overall, the data in Table 16, taken from the first seventy-nine laisses, support my prediction and show that the observed distribution is not random. The rate of the Imperfect Subjunctive for the characters that embody the evil is 89.5% versus 10.5% for the characters that embody the good. The lower result of the Z-value that does not exceed the significance value of 2.054 may be explained by the small number of examples in this count. The two instances of the Imperfect Subjunctive, found for the good characters, appear in the passage where Charlemagne is tempted by the peace proposed by the Saracens. His decision goes against the main interest of the plot that deals with the absolute struggle between the good and the evil. Therefore, it is less relevant to the narrator and appears in the Imperfect Subjunctive. The lower Z-value may reflect this fact. Nevertheless, according to a standard Z-table (cf. Muller 1992: 175), the Z-value of 1.833 has the probability p of 0.0668, i.e. a 93% confidence level. This means that in 93 cases out of 100 the observed distribution is unlikely to have happened by chance, which may be statistically significant for less rigorous counts. In addition, the odds ratio shows Table 16. From sign to text (La chanson de Roland): Non-random distribution of the Subjunctive moods for positive vs. negative characters in laisses 1–79 Evil Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive IS (%) OR Z

Leitmotifs

51 17

Good 25 2

89.5% : 10.5% 4.167 : 1 1.833


that in these laisses the Imperfect Subjunctive is four times as prevalent for the characters that embody the evil as for those that embody the good. The next section includes laisses 80–132 and deals with the battle of the Frankish rearguard against the outnumbering Saracen army. The Franks see the advancing enemy and decide to prepare for the battle. They fight heroically, but the Saracens have greater forces. An argument breaks out between Roland and Olivier. Olivier asks Roland to blow his horn to call the rest of Charlemagne’s army for their help. At first, Roland is certain that his rearguard will triumph. He subsequently sees how many of their comrades have been killed, which arouses Roland’s grief and Olivier’s anger. Roland realizes that the victory is impossible and sounds the horn to call for help. Both comrades decide to kill as many Saracens as possible before their deaths. Starting with this section, the poet combines the description of good and evil characters with battle scenes where both sides clash in a merciless struggle. On the one hand, the narrator vividly presents the heroic battles of the Frankish rearguard, one-on-one fights of the Frankish and the Saracen lords. On the other hand, he describes the warriors’ horses and weapons, their grief at the death of their comrades and their regret that help is not coming. I believe that the battle scenes constitute the story, whereas the detailed descriptions of the warriors’ armor or feelings constitute background information. This information seems to be less relevant to the main interest of the song that deals with the struggle between the good and the evil. This leads to the following prediction: Prediction 4: the Imperfect Subjunctive is favored for the descriptions that constitute background information more than for the battle scenes that constitute the plot.

The results of the count for this prediction are found in Table 17. The data in Table 17 support my prediction. They show a 100% correlation of the use of the Imperfect Subjunctive for the descriptions that constitute background information and that of the Present Subjunctive for battles scenes that Table 17. From sign to text (La chanson de Roland): Non-random distribution of the Subjunctive moods for descriptions vs. plot-battles in laisses 80–132 Descriptions Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive IS (%) OR

Leitmotifs

20 17

Plot-battles 27 0

100% : 0% 100% correlation


constitute the plot. The count for the second leitmotif of the poem confirms that this distribution is not random.35 The third section comprises laisses 133–188 and deals with Roland’s death and Charlemagne’s pursuit of the Saracens. Roland blows his horn and this blow results in a deadly wound. Charlemagne hears Roland and rushes to his help. He understands that Ganelon is a traitor and arrests him. Meanwhile, seeing the dead warriors, Roland realizes his mistake. He grieves for his friends, but continues to fight boldly until he dies. Charlemagne’s troops arrive too late and find only dead bodies. He pursues the fleeing Saracens to take his revenge. Roland’s heroic death is the leitmotif of the third section and the culmination of the whole poem. Roland becomes a martyr in the struggle between the good and the evil. The struggle is shown as the alternation of battle scenes with the descriptions of the landscape around the massacre of Roland’s warriors. I believe that the battle scenes embody the struggle between the good and the evil, whereas in the descriptions the narration slows down and indirectly reflects this struggle. The opposition between the Imperfect and the Present Subjunctives is used to emphasize this difference. Consequently, one would expect the following distribution: Prediction 5: the Imperfect Subjunctive is favored for the descriptions that constitute background information more than for the battle scenes that constitute the plot.

The results of the count for Prediction 5 are presented in Table 18. Table 18. From sign to text (La chanson de Roland): Non-random distribution of the Subjunctive moods for descriptions vs. plot-battles in laisses 133–188 Descriptions Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive IS (%) OR

Leitmotifs

60 13

Plot-battles 26 0


35. The use of the Present Subjunctive for battle scenes in the Song of Roland is similar to that of the present tense in biymei xilayon u-mered ‘In Days of Destruction and Revolt’ by Lubetkin (1979), discussed in Tobin (1989: 73–78). In his analysis of tense in Modern Hebrew, Tobin (ibid: 66) claims that the encoder uses the present tense for occurrences that are close to him/her “emotionally at the time of encoding”, regardless of the actual time of occurrences. Tobin further presents the analysis of the distribution of tenses in the text by Lubetkin. This is a journal, written by one of the leaders of the Zionist Pioneering Youth Movement in the Warsaw Ghetto. Tobin shows that the historical present is the most frequently used in those passages, related to “the Uprising, its suppression, the burning of the ghetto, and the concluding chapter describing the ‘secret of the movement’s strength’” (ibid: 77).


The results in Table 18 are also consistent with my prediction. In this section, the data reveal a 100% correlation between the use of the Imperfect Subjunctive and the descriptions. They do not deal directly with the battle of the Franks against the Saracens, i.e. they constitute background information. The count confirms the significance of the correlation, observed in the third section of laisses. The leitmotif of the last section that includes laisses 189–291 is Charlemagne’s vengeance for Roland’s death. Charlemagne routs the great army of Baligant, the Emir of Babylon, who arrives to help his vassal Marsilla. During this bloody battle, all the Saracen warriors have been killed or have been put to flight. When the Frankish army comes back to France, Charlemagne puts the traitor Ganelon on trial. However, the jury of barons that the Emperor has assembled to fix Ganelon’s fate decides to let him live. To prove that the barons’ verdict is unfair, Charlemagne’s vassal Thierry is ready to fight a duel with anyone who would assert that Ganelon is innocent. Ganelon’s friend Pinabel takes up the gauntlet. During the fierce battle, Thierry kills Pinabel and proves that Ganelon is a traitor who should die. Ganelon is killed, and God charges Charlemagne with a new assignment: to save a Christian city, besieged by pagans. As in the previous sections, the encoder emphasizes the importance of the battle scenes in the poem. They are not only colorfully depicted, but also used to decide whose side wins in the struggle between the good and the evil. I believe that the opposition of the Present versus the Imperfect Subjunctives is used to emphasize the distinction between the story and different descriptions (departures from the story). This leads to the following prediction: Prediction 6: the Imperfect Subjunctive is favored for the descriptions that constitute background information as opposed to in the battle scenes illustrating the struggle between the good and the evil.

The results of the count for this prediction are shown in Table 19. The results in Table 19 are consistent with my prediction. The data of the last section also shows a 100% correlation between the use of the Imperfect SubTable 19. From sign to text (La chanson de Roland): Non-random distribution of the Subjunctive moods for descriptions vs. plot-battles in laisses 189–291 Descriptions Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive IS (%) OR

Leitmotifs

64 18

Plot-battles 29 0



junctive and the descriptions. They do not advance the story, i.e. constitute background information. This count as well validates the significance of the observed correlation. Thus, the invariant meanings of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives in Old French express the opposite degree of relevance of possible occurrences to the encoder. Their invariant meanings, postulated as Occurrence Questioned, More Relevant for the Present Subjunctive and Occurrence Questioned, Less Relevant for the Imperfect Subjunctive, motivate their distribution both in individual sentences and in complete texts.

chapter 15

The Subjunctive moods in Contemporary French “Micro-level” analysis

The following data represent the “micro-level” analysis of individual examples of the use of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives in Contemporary French. As in Old French, their use can be attributed to the communicative strategies, determined by the opposition of their invariant meanings within the System of Relevance. The Present Subjunctive is used to emphasize the encoder’s concern regarding an alternative or the real possibility of an alternative. The Imperfect Subjunctive is used to deemphasize the encoder’s concern regarding an alternative or to emphasize its hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual) possibility.

15.1 The System of Relevance and the encoder’s concern An alternative is relevant to the encoder, if he/she is involved directly in its realization or manifests his/her interest in its outcome. Example (33), taken from the short story Après dix ans ‘After Ten Years’ by Maurois (1946), illustrates this point. It represents the Imperfect Subjunctive that is irregularly used after the verb savoir ‘to know’ to show that an alternative is less relevant to the encoder. In this example, a husband denies any relationship with a woman whom he loved ten years ago and feels uncomfortable inviting her to dinner. The decoder infers from the Imperfect Subjunctive that whatever relationship might have once been between the husband and this woman, they are not relevant to him now. (33) – Et pourquoi diable vous a-t-elle appelée dès ce matin ? – Pour reprendre contact… Après une longue absence, elle veut revoir ses amis; c’est naturel. – Je ne savais pas que nous fussions (IS) ses amis. (Maurois 1946 : 16) ‘“And why the devil did she call you this morning?” “Just to get in touch with us. It’s only natural that she wants to see her friends after such a long time.” “I didn’t know we were (IS) [fussions] friends of hers.”’ (Maurois 1949: 313)


The Imperfect Subjunctive is found in written French and hardly ever in spoken French. In the same context in spoken French, one uses the Indicative instead of the Imperfect Subjunctive, as in example (34), taken from the novel Chéri by Colette (1970 [1960]). (34) Et puis il me faut le loisir de le regarder. Je n’ai pas dû le bien regarder, au temps où je ne savais pas que je l’aimais (I). (Colette 1970 [1960] : 142) ‘And then I have to have time to look at him. I couldn’t have looked at him enough all the years I didn’t know I loved (I) [aimais] him.’ (Colette 1951: 107)

The following set of examples represents the Subjunctive moods, used to emphasize the opposite degrees of relevance of alternative occurrences to the encoder. Examples (35)–(36), taken from L’Arrache-Cœur ‘Heartsnatcher’ by Vian (1962), represent the use of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives following expressions of volition. In example (35), Jacquemort, being ashamed for having slapped a choirboy, wants to go to see La Gloïre who is paid for taking the shame of villagers. It is important for Jacquemort to get rid of this uncomfortable feeling. Therefore, the relevance of this occurrence is emphasized by the Present Subjunctive. (35) Une gêne le prenait. Il la rejeta d’un haussement d’épaule. « Qu’importe… pensa-t-il. La Gloïre est là pour la prendre. Il fallait déjà que j’aille (PS) le voir pour cette gifle que j’ai donnée à l’enfant de chœur. » (Vian 1962 : 180) ‘Discomfort gripped him. He shook it off by a shrug of shoulders. “It doesn’t matter”, he thought. “La Gloïre is there to take it. I had to go (PS) [aille] to see him because of this slap that I had given to the choirboy.”’

In example (36), a mother, worried that misfortunes or accidents can happen to her children, wants to hire a home tutor. However, she is a non-believer and she does not want her children to be religious either. Therefore, she rejects the candidature of the village priest as being less relevant, which accounts for the Imperfect Subjunctive in example (36). (36) – Le curé ferait un précepteur assez traditionnel… dit Jacquemort. – Je ne suis pas très religieuse et je ne vois pas pourquoi je désirerais que mes enfants le devinssent (IS). (Vian 1962 : 190) ‘“The priest would be a quite traditional tutor”, said Jacquemort. “I am not too religious and I do not see why I would like that my children should (IS) be [devinssent].”’

Examples (37)–(38) are instances of the use of the Subjunctive moods to express the relevance of an anticipated occurrence whose uncertain outcome implies

Chapter 15. The Subjunctive moods in Contemporary French 241

an alternative. Example (37) has been taken from a detective story by Simenon (1952). In this example, the police captain Maigret and his British colleagues ambush at the hotel Savoy for a suspect who is looking for a woman to kill. The suspect does not know that she is staying at this hotel and, hence, makes the round of London hotels in alphabetical order. Maigret arrived from Paris especially to arrest him. Therefore, Maigret’s expectation that the suspect might appear at the hotel Savoy is expressed by the Present Subjunctive. (37) – Voulez-vous surveiller le hall et m’avertir dès qu’il arrivera ? – Avant qu’il en soit (PS) à la lettre S, il se passera encore du temps, sir. (Simenon 1952 : 123) ‘“Could you watch the hall and warn me as soon as he comes?” “Some time will pass before he comes (PS) [soit] up to the letter S, sir.”’

Example (38) has been taken from Le Malentendu ‘Cross Purpose’ by Camus (1958). In this example, a woman speaks about her husband whom she has neglected long before his death. Their relations broke off during his life that even then was less relevant to her. Therefore, the Imperfect Subjunctive appears in example (38). (38) Mon mari et moi y suffisions à peine. Nous n’avions même pas le temps de penser l’un à l’autre et, avant même qu’il fût (IS) mort, je crois que je l’avais oublié. (Camus 1958 : 193) ‘My husband and I, together, could hardly cope with it. We hadn’t even time to think of each other; I believe I had forgotten him even before he died (IS) [fût mort].’ (Camus 1947a: 123)

Example (39), taken from L’Arrache-Cœur ‘The Heartsnatcher’ by Vian (1962), is an instance of the use of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives within the same sentence. This example deals with the vain attempts of the psychiatrist Jacquemort to psychoanalyze his servant. The first occurrence presents Jacquemort as a performer who is interested in overcoming the servant’s passivity and indifference. The outcome of this occurrence is more relevant to him, despite being uncertain, and therefore it is expressed by the Present Subjunctive. In the second occurrence, Jacquemort is completely discouraged by the servant’s passivity and indifference. He is not involved in the realization of this occurrence, but rather is affected by it. Therefore, this occurrence is less relevant to him and is expressed by the Imperfect Subjunctive. (39) En son absence, il s’indignait contre elle, il préparait une argumentation puérile, désarmé, sitôt qu’il la retrouvait, par un silence, par une inertie trop naturels pour qu’il puisse (PS) les combattre, trop simples pour qu’ils


engendrassent (IS) en lui autre chose qu’un total découragement. (Vian 1962 : 101) ‘In her absence, Jacquemort was indignant with her, he prepared childish argumentation and, as soon as he saw her again, he was disarmed by the silence, by passivity too natural to be (PS) [puisse] fought against, too simple to generate (IS) [engendrassent] in him anything else but a complete discouragement.’

Examples (33)–(39) show how the encoder uses the opposition of the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive moods to emphasize the degrees of relevance of alternative occurrences to the encoder. The Present Subjunctive is used to emphasize the encoder’s concern, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive is used to deemphasize any such concern. As previously stated, the System of Relevance underlies the use of the Subjunctive moods across time. Therefore, just as in Old French, the Contemporary French Subjunctives correlate with the System of Person to emphasize or deemphasize the significance of an alternative occurrence for the encoder. The Subjunctive moods appear with different subjects. However, the first person pronoun, meaning Speaker, refers to the encoder directly, whereas the third person pronoun, meaning Other, does not. Hence, one would expect that the Present Subjunctive would be preferred for the first person subjects, and sentences with the third person subjects would favor the Imperfect Subjunctive. Example (40), taken from Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936), presents two opposite perceptions of the relevance of an alternative outcome to the encoder. The less relevant alternative that does not concern the encoder appears in the Imperfect Subjunctives following the third person subject. The more relevant alternative, concerning the encoder, appears in the Present Subjunctive following the first person subject. (40) Écrivez-moi n’importe quoi, mais écrivez-moi. Ne fût (IS)-ce qu’une enveloppe vide, comme celles que le maréchal de Luxembourg demandait à Rousseau, pour que je sache (PS) que vous êtes vivant. (Montherlant 1936 : 130) ‘Write me anything, but write to me. Even if it were (IS) [fût] only an empty envelope, as those that the field marshal of Luxembourg asked from Rousseau, so that I know (PS) [sache] that you are alive.’

From this, my prediction is as follows: Prediction 7: in Contemporary French, the third person subject favors the Imperfect Subjunctive more than the first person subject does.


Table 20. Correlation of the Present vs. the Imperfect Subjunctives with first vs. third person subjects Montherlant Other Speaker PS IS OR IS % Z

170 161

66 5 12.501

Other

Vian Speaker

100 19 22 0 100% correlation 97.5% : 2.5% 5.611

Simenon Other Speaker 81 36 14 0 100% correlation

The texts, taken for this analysis, include Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936), L’Arrache-Cœur ‘Heartsnatcher’ by Vian (1962) and Le Revolver de Maigret by Simenon (1952). The results of the count for Prediction 7 are presented in Table 20. The data in Table 20 are based on a sample of more than six hundred instances of the use of the Present (PS) and the Imperfect (IS) Subjunctives with the first (Speaker) and the third (Other) person subjects. The results in Table 20 support my prediction. In the three texts, the difference in the frequency of the use of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives is even more manifested for the first person subjects, the odds ratios of the texts by Vian and Simenon showing a 100% correlation. The text by Montherlant shows that the third person subject meaning Other is preferred for the Imperfect Subjunctive twelve times as much as the first person subject meaning Speaker. As it is subsequently shown, five examples of the Imperfect Subjunctive in the first person subject were imposed by the plot to emphasize the gap between characters. Moreover, one can see that the cross totals rate of the Imperfect Subjunctive following the third person subject is 97.5% versus 2.5%, used after the first person subject. The Z-value (Z) for these texts together, as if they belonged to a single text, also supports my prediction, considerably exceeding the significance value of 2.054. As in Old French, both the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives occur more with the third person subject than with the first person subject. This preference could be explained by the very nature of a narrative where a third person form is usually more frequent than the other forms. However, the data show that the odds of verbs in the Imperfect Subjunctive after the third person subject prevail over that of verbs in the Present Subjunctive. This allows me to claim that the observed distribution is not random.


15.2 The System of Relevance and the possibility of an alternative The degree of the relevance of an alternative occurrence also depends on whether it could take place in the near future. If an alternative belongs to the realm of the possible, its degree of relevance is higher. If an alternative is imaginary, i.e. if it belongs to the realm of the hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual), its degree of relevance is lower. Therefore, in Contemporary French, the meaning Alternative, More Relevant of the Present Subjunctive is more appropriate to imply a possible alternative. The meaning Alternative, Less Relevant of the Imperfect Subjunctive is especially appropriate to imply a hypothetical (counterfactual or unreal) alternative. This claim is illustrated by the set of examples (41)–(45). Example (41), taken from Le Petit Prince by Saint-Exupéry (1946), presents the use of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives within a larger context. In this passage, the little prince admires the selflessness of a lamplighter whom he meets during his visit to other planets. The little prince implies that the lamplighter is the only possible adult, the only alternative to other adults who seem egotistic and ridiculous. Therefore, the Present Subjunctive appears in example (41) to emphasize the relevance of this alternative. Yet, the dimensions of the lamplighter’s planet cannot house two people. Therefore, the alternative that the lamplighter might have become the prince’s friend is an irrelevant hypothesis, expressed by the Imperfect Subjunctive. (41) Celui-là, se dit le petit prince, tandis qu’il poursuivait plus loin son voyage, celui-là serait méprisé par tous les autres, par le roi, par le vaniteux, par le buveur, par le businessman. Cependant c’est le seul qui ne me paraisse (PS) pas ridicule. C’est, peut-être, parce qu’il s’occupe d’autre chose que de soimême. Il eut un soupir de regret et se dit encore : – Celui-là est le seul dont j’eusse (IS) pu faire mon ami. Mais sa planète est vraiment trop petite. Il n’y a pas de place pour deux… (Exupéry 1946 : 52–53) ‘“That man,” said the little prince to himself, as he continued farther on his journey, “that man would be scorned by all the others: by the king, by the conceited man, by the tippler, by the businessman. Nevertheless he is the only one of them all who does (PS) not seem [paraisse] to me ridiculous. Perhaps that is because he is thinking of something else besides himself.” He breathed a sign of regret, and said to himself, again: “That man is the only one of them all whom I could (IS) [eusse pu] have made my friend. But his planet is indeed too small. There is no room on it for two people…”’ (Exupéry 1943: 53)


As previously stated, the narrower invariant meaning Alternative to Occurrence of the Contemporary French Subjunctive underlies its disfavoring from sentences of comparison of inequality. However, in comparisons of equality this mood is used, where it emphasizes a more specific alternative to a compared occurrence, as in example (42), taken from the play Rhinoceros by Ionesco (1959). Daisy realizes that she and Berenger are the only two humans left. She insists that they both must follow other people and be transformed into rhinoceroses. Berenger tries to prove to Daisy that it is much better to remain human beings because they can love. In this passage, he implies with the Subjunctive that he loves her more than any other man could love a woman. The relevance of this alternative is emphasized by the Present Subjunctive. (42) Daisy : Il n’y a pas de raison absolue. C’est le monde qui a raison, ce n’est pas toi, ni moi. Bérenger : Si, Daisy, j’ai raison. […] La preuve, c’est que je t’aime autant qu’un homme puisse (PS) aimer une femme. (Ionesco 1959 : 238–239) ‘Daisy: There’s no such thing as absolute right. It’s the world that’s right – not you and me. Berenger: I am right, Daisy. […] The proof is that I love you as much as it’s (PS) [puisse] possible for a man to love a woman.’ (Ionesco 1960: 103)

Example (43), taken from Les Caves du Vatican ‘The Vatican Cellars’ by Gide (1975) [1922], presents the use of the Imperfect Subjunctive in comparison of inequality to imply a counterfactual alternative occurrence. In this example, a professor on a train engages Lafcadio in conversation about breaking social conventions. This reminds Lafcadio of the unmotivated murder he has committed just to break these conventions. Instinctively, Lafcadio reveals his worry, although he would prefer to have looked calm. This counterfactual occurrence is emphasized, therefore, by the Imperfect Subjunctive in example (43). (43) […] [le professeur] fixait à présent sur Lafcadio des yeux bizarres, dont le regard tantôt vague et tantôt perçant commençait à l’inquiéter. Lafcadio se demandait à présent si la myopie de cet homme n’était pas feinte, et, presque, il reconnaissait ce regard. A la fin, plus gêné qu’il n’eût (IS) voulu en convenir, il se leva […] (Gide 1975 [1922] : 226) ‘[…] the eyes [the professor] now fixed on Lafcadio were peculiar; their glance, which was at times vague and at times piercing, began to alarm him. Lafcadio wondered now whether the man’s short sight were not feigned, and that peculiar glance seemed to him almost familiar. At last, more embarrassed than he cared (IS) [eût voulu] to own, he got up […]’ (Gide 1952: 225–226)


In spoken French, one uses the Conditional36 instead of the Imperfect Subjunctive to express a counterfactual occurrence. It is my hypothesis that the opposition between the Conditional and the Subjunctive represents the opposition between different kinds of possibilities, perceived by the encoder. Simultaneously with the diachronic narrowing of the invariant meaning of the Subjunctive, the meaning Occurrence Questioned was associated with the forms of the Conditional. Thus, in Contemporary French, the Conditional means a broader uncertainty, including questioned (doubtful, possible, hypothetical) occurrences, whereas the Subjunctive means a more specific alternative to an occurrence. However, this fact is less relevant to my analysis here and will be the subject of further research. Example (44), taken from the same novel as the above example, illustrates this claim. In this passage, Lafcadio is uncertain whether he should be afraid that his scratch was visibly bleeding. (44) Cela saignait; mais moins qu’il n’aurait (Conditional) pu craindre […] (Gide 1975 [1922] : 197) ‘It was bleeding, but less than might (Conditional) have been [aurait pu] expected […]’ (Gide 1952: 194)

In written French, one can find the Imperfect Subjunctive used to express a less relevant hypothetical alternative to a situation that might seem to be, but is not. Example (45), taken from L’Arrache-Cœur ‘The Heartsnatcher’ by Vian (1962), illustrates this claim. In this example, the brutal villagers crucify their horse without paying attention to the psychiatrist Jacquemort. They keep on doing this despite all of Jacquemort’s objections, as if he did not exist. Therefore, this less relevant hypothetical alternative is expressed by the Imperfect Subjunctive in example (45). (45) Les paysans continuaient sans plus se soucier du psychiatre que si celui-ci se fût (IS) trouvé fort loin de là, aux Isles, par exemple. (Vian 1962 : 94) ‘The peasants went on without caring any longer about the psychiatrist, as if he were (IS) [se fût trouvé] very far from there, on the Isles, for example.’

A hypothetical alternative can convey a concessive nuance, expressed in the written French, by constructions such as dussé-je ‘even if I had to’, fût-ce ‘even if it was’, eussé-je su que ‘even if I had known that’. They appear only in the Imperfect Subjunctive, implying that whether an alternative would take place or not, its outcome will not change the status quo. Example (46), taken from L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ by Kundera (1984), illustrates 36. Guillaume (1970, 1971) does not consider the Conditional as being a mood on its own right, but rather as a particular future of the Indicative. However, this fact is not relevant to the present analysis.


this point. In this example, the narrator claims that however horrible or beautiful life might be, we cannot find its meaning, being unable to change past decisions and to compare our different lives. Therefore, the irrelevance of this alternative appears in the Imperfect Subjunctive. (46) Le mythe de l’éternel retourne affirme, par la négation, que la vie qui disparaît une fois pour toutes, qui ne revient pas, est semblable à une ombre, est sans poids, est morte d’avance, et fût (IS)-elle atroce, belle, splendide, cette atrocité, cette beauté, cette splendeur ne signifient rien. (Kundera 1984 : 13) ‘Putting it negatively, the myth of eternal return states that a life which disappears once and for all, which does not return, is like a shadow, without weight, dead in advance, and whether it was (S) [fût], its horror, sublimity, and beauty mean nothing.’ (Kundera 1985: 3)

Examples (41)–(46) show that the opposition of the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive moods underlies the distinction between a possible alternative and a hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual) alternative. The Present Subjunctive is used to express the former, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive is used to express the latter. The analysis of individual examples of the Contemporary French Subjunctives has shown that, as in Old French, their use is motivated by their invariant meanings within the System of Relevance. The Present Subjunctive, meaning More Relevant alternative, is used to emphasize the relevance of an alternative to the encoder. An alternative is more relevant either because its realization concerns the encoder directly or because it is related to the realm of the possible. The Imperfect Subjunctive, meaning Less Relevant alternative, is used to emphasize a less relevant alternative to the encoder. An alternative is less relevant either because its realization does not concern the encoder directly or because it is related to the realm of the hypothetical (unreal or counterfactual).

chapter 16

The Subjunctive moods in Contemporary French “Macro-level” analysis 16.1 Les jeunes filles (The Girls) I expect that the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive moods that motivate their distribution in individual examples will also account for their distribution within entire texts. To validate this hypothesis, I apply the “from text to sign” approach. It has been suggested by Tobin (1990, 1993, 1995) for the analysis of the distribution of linguistic forms within the “macro-level” discourse. This approach deals with the distribution of linguistic forms motivated by a text itself, viewed as a sign in its own right. […] the larger textual message – the meaning half of the textual sign – will motivate the choice of the marked or unmarked form throughout the text – the signal half of the textual sign. (Tobin 1995: 192)

The text that I have chosen for the “from text to sign” analysis is Les jeunes filles ‘The Girls’ by Montherlant (1936). This epistolary novel deals with relationships between men and women, presented in the form of a correspondence between the famous writer Pierre Costals and his female admirers. The novel also includes Costals’s speculations about the human behavior, about marriage and happiness as well as the scenes of Costals’s rendezvous with his female admirers. The novel is concerned with two provincial girls who shower the writer with their love letters. Thérèse Pantevin is strange and pious. She mystically signs Marie Paradis. Andrée Hacquebaut is much more intellectual and more educated, but annoyingly boring and importunate to the same extent. Costals remains oblivious to their expectations and chooses the less educated, less intelligent, but much prettier Solange Dandillot as his mistress. I propose the following hypotheses concerning the novel and the role of the Relevance opposition in this text. 1. The larger message of the text, viewed as a sign, implies that women do not understand that a man is not made for a marriage. Men and women cannot do without each other. However, women do not realize that a man such


as Costals cannot live with one woman for a long time, not to mention get married to her. In his preface, Montherlant partially sides with Costals, acknowledging thereby that the libertine bachelor life of his main character is the message of the novel. Le caractère de Costals est, en partie du moins, un caractère de “libertin” ou de “mauvais sujet” (comme on disait autrefois). Il a donc fallu lui donner des particularités qui fussent convenables à ce caractère. S’il est sûr que l’auteur a mis de soi dans ce personnage, il reste qu’il y a en celui-ci nombre de traits qui sont du domaine purement objectif, voulus par les seuls besoins de l’art […] (Montherlant 1936 : 5) ‘The character of Costals is, at least partly, a character of “libertine” or “rake” (as one said in the past). Therefore, it was necessary to attribute to him features that would suit this character. If the author surely put his own into this character, nevertheless, the latter has a number of features that belong to a purely objective domain, required only by the artistic needs […]’.

2. This message is based on the opposite notions of masculinity versus femininity, betrayal versus fidelity, sexual freedom versus puritanical conduct, liberty versus marriage. 3. This message can be directly related to the invariant meanings of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives within the System of Relevance. 4. The meaning More Relevant of the Present Subjunctive can be associated with the notions of betrayal, sexual freedom and liberty. They are more relevant to the idea of a light-hearted bachelor life that a man such as Costals prefers to live. The meaning Less Relevant of the Imperfect Subjunctive can be associated with the notions of fidelity, puritanical conduct and marriage. They are less relevant to the idea of a light-hearted bachelor life that a man such as Costals seeks. Based on 1–4 above, I hypothesize that the message of the text, viewed as a sign in its own right, motivates the distribution of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives throughout the novel in the following way: 1. The more the character embodies the idea of a light-hearted bachelor life, the more the Present Subjunctive is used. 2. The less the character shares the idea of a light-hearted bachelor life, the more the Imperfect Subjunctive is used. Costals is a major male character of the novel, a famous writer and a light-hearted womanizer who lives as a perpetual bachelor. He considers fidelity and marriage as a constant threat to his liberty and to his creative work. Throughout the novel,


Costals defends his way of life in the letters to his female admirers as well as in his articles and his diary. In other words, he embodies the notions that are more relevant to the larger message of the novel. Therefore, I predict that the character of Pierre Costals favors the Present Subjunctive. The Costals’s girls embody the ideas that are less relevant to his world outlook and to the larger message of the novel. Pious Thérèse Pantevin symbolizes fidelity and puritanical conduct. Andrée Hacquebaut and Solange Dandillot evoke the idea of marriage in Costals. Throughout the novel, the girls pursue Costals, shower him with love letters, being ready even to suffer humiliation to win his affection. Therefore, I predict that the girls, opposing the ideas relevant to the Costals’s life, favor the Imperfect Subjunctive. This leads me to formulate the following general prediction: Prediction 8: the Imperfect Subjunctive is favored for the girls more than for the character of Pierre Costals.

The results of the count for Prediction 8 are presented in Table 21. The results of Table 21 of the distribution of the Subjunctive moods in the novel provide statistical confirmation of my prediction. They show that both Subjunctive moods are distributed differently for the major characters throughout the novel. The rate of the Imperfect Subjunctive is 43.3% for the girls who embody fidelity, puritanical conduct and marriage versus 27.9%, used for the character of Pierre Costals who embodies a light-hearted bachelor life. The odds ratio indicates that the Imperfect Subjunctive appears in the novel about twice as much as for the girls than for that of Pierre Costals. The Z-value (Z) in Table 21 exceeds the significance value of 2.054, which shows that the predicted distribution of the Subjunctive moods is not arbitrary. It is motivated by the larger message of the novel, viewed as a sign, which rejects the idea that a man is made for a marriage. The narrator makes fun of girls who dream of it. However, it would be incorrect to say that the girls produce an unpleasant image, whereas that of Costals is idealized in the novel. On the one hand, Costals Table 21. From text to sign (Les jeunes filles): Non-random distribution for the girls vs. Pierre Costals Light-hearted Bachelor Life The Girls Pierre Costals Present Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive IS % OR Z

115 88

142 55 43.3% : 27.9% 1.976 : 1 3.200


sympathizes with Andrée’s intellect and education as well as with Solange’s beauty that are extraordinary. Moreover, Thérèse worships Costals as an idol, which flatters his pride. Therefore, we find the instances of the Present Subjunctive, attributed to the girls. On the other hand, Costals shows cynicism and contempt for the importunate and annoying declarations of love of his female admirers. Throughout the novel, Costals treats girls with conscious superiority. We find it in his letters to Thérèse and Andrée. We see it in his rendezvous with Solange. In these contexts, the distance is emphasized between Costals and the girls. This distance explains the instances of the Imperfect Subjunctive, attributed to Costals. Thus, I have proposed the analysis of the distribution of the Subjunctive moods both in individual messages and in entire texts in Contemporary French. The analysis has shown that, just as in Old French, the distribution of the Subjunctive moods is motivated by their invariant meanings within the System of Relevance. I have postulated these meanings as Alternative, More Relevant for the Present Subjunctive and Alternative, Less Relevant for the Imperfect Subjunctive. They emphasize the degree of relevance of an alternative to the encoder and to the main interest of the communication in progress.

16.2 The disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive from speech and its appropriateness to writing A question left open is why the Imperfect Subjunctive has disappeared from spoken language in Contemporary French. The answer to it has been implicitly provided by my analysis: the disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive has been motivated by its invariant meaning. I follow Tobin (1995) who formulates the basic theoretical and methodological principle of the postulation of an invariant meaning: […] all the discourse and contextual functions, uses, and meanings, i.e. in signoriented terms – all the messages associated with a linguistic sign – are derived from and accounted for by the invariant meaning itself. (Tobin 1995: 10)

It is significant to note that the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives are derived from different paradigms. This difference is reflected in their invariant meanings and in their use in Old and in Contemporary French. The Present Subjunctive is derived from the Present Indicative, except for irregular verbs such as être ‘to be’, faire ‘to make’, savoir ‘to know’ and some forms of aller ‘to go’, valoir ‘to be worth’, vouloir ‘to want’. The Subjunctive forms of these verbs do not exist in the Indicative paradigm. The Imperfect Subjunctive is derived from the Past Simple (the Preterit or the Past Historic) (cf. Soutet 2000: 21, 24–25, 26). The Present Indicative


allows the encoder to represent an occurrence as being “closest to his/her heart” (Tobin 1989: 75), i.e. more relevant to his/her here and now point of speaking, regardless of the actual time of an occurrence. The Past Simple is most suitable for past events that are less relevant to the encoder’s present. This tense has almost disappeared from spoken French. However, on the other hand, “the gulf that the PS implies between the past and the present makes it particularly appropriate for reference to past events in writing” (Reid 1983 [1979]: 302). The same holds for the Subjunctive moods as well. The invariant meaning Alternative, More Relevant of the Present Subjunctive is more appropriate to focus on the relevance of an alternative to the ongoing conversation. Therefore, this mood is largely used in speech when occurrences taking place or their alternative are viewed directly at the moment of speaking. They are relevant to the here and now point of speaking of the encoder-speaker and the decoder-hearer. The invariant meaning Alternative, Less Relevant of the Imperfect Subjunctive implies a gap between the possibility that an alternative occurrence might take place and the ongoing conversation. Therefore, on the one hand, this gap makes the use of the Imperfect Subjunctive less appropriate for speech. However, on the other hand, it explains the appropriateness of this mood for writing, in the same way as the Past Simple does. According to Reid (1983 [1979]: 302–303), in writing “the participants in the communicative act – the writer and the reader – do not share the moment of recounting”. In writing, occurrences taking place are perceived from and related to the here and now point of view of the encoderwriter. It is less relevant to the here and now point of view of the decoder-reader. In Contemporary French, however, the Imperfect Subjunctive tends to deny any relevance to an alternative both to the ongoing communication and to the encoder. Therefore, this mood disappears even from writing in favor of the Present Subjunctive that implies the relevance of an alternative.

16.3 Summary and conclusions To summarize, the Subjunctive moods in Old and in Contemporary French have been viewed as grammatical signs. Diachronically, the difference between the Old French and the Contemporary French Subjunctives lies within the Occurrence System. The Old French Subjunctive meant Occurrence Questioned that expressed the possibility of an occurrence in the broadest sense of the term. The Contemporary French Subjunctive has the narrower meaning of Alternative to Occurrence that expresses a more specific instance of a questioned occurrence. Synchronically, I have shown that the opposition of the invariant meanings of the Subjunctive moods underlies the System of Relevance. It means that oc-


currences or their alternative, expressed by the Subjunctive moods, differ in their degree of relevance to the encoder and to the ongoing communication. Both in Old and in Contemporary French, the Present Subjunctive emphasizes occurrences or their alternative that are More Relevant to the encoder. The Imperfect Subjunctive expresses occurrences or their alternative that are Less Relevant to the encoder. The analysis has shown that the distribution of the Subjunctive moods in Old and in Contemporary French is not arbitrary. It is motivated by the postulated invariant meanings both in individual messages and in entire texts. These invariant meanings also explain the favoring of the Present Subjunctive for both spoken and written language and the disfavoring of the Imperfect Subjunctive from speech.

Concluding remarks

The purpose of this research was to present a semantic analysis of the kind of reality that the encoder wants to describe by the choice of mood in French. I have started from the assumption that the encoder can organize discourse and present information in different ways. The question was what the encoder wants to show by the Indicative and the Subjunctive and why these moods appear where they do. In Part 1, I have shown that a large number of diverse studies have been carried out on the Subjunctive. Most of these studies have explained the choice of the Subjunctive over the Indicative by the functions that the former performs in a sentence or by linguistic environments that allegedly govern its use. These sentence-oriented approaches did not postulate a single meaning of the Subjunctive that would underlie its use in diverse linguistic contexts. The attempts of some of them (cf. Nølke 1993, 2001) to arrive at a single meaning were not successful. They looked for abstract meaning in particular extra-linguistic messages. I have used the Columbia School sign-oriented framework to analyze and to explain the distribution of mood in French. Instead of dealing with particular communicated ideas as if they were analytical units, I have used the Saussurean sign with its invariant meaning as the basic unit of analysis. I have considered the Indicative and the Subjunctive linguistic signs in the Saussurean sense. I have proceeded from the Columbia School distinction between invariant meanings and variable messages as the specific interpretations of the former. This distinction allowed me to postulate the invariant meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. Paraphrasing Hewson (1997: 124), I have claimed that their meanings are invariant in the sense that they convey a constant idea, found in every Indicative and in every Subjunctive regardless of the context and situation where the mood appears. What is not constant is a large number of contextual meanings that are inferred from each particular use of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. My analysis has shown that wherever the Indicative and the Subjunctive appear, their invariant meanings motivate their distribution. The results obtained in the analysis consist in the following: 1. I have postulated that the linguistic signs of the Subjunctive and the Indicative form the Occurrence System whose semantic substance deals with the nature of occurrence taking place. Within this system, the Indicative invari-


2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

ably means Occurrence, i.e. a situation, experienced in the present or the past, or expected to take place in the future. The Subjunctive invariably means Alternative to Occurrence, i.e. the contextual implication of any departure from the encoder’s expectations concerning what is being expressed by the Subjunctive. I have examined the use of both signs in diverse messages, emphasizing their differences, based on the opposition of their invariant meanings. The analysis of these messages has shown that the Indicative is used to emphasize the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. Alternatively, the Subjunctive is used to deemphasize the encoder’s commitment and to reorient the decoder’s attention to a possible alternative outcome. The postulated invariant meanings have suggested particular ways of the exploitation of both moods, called communicative strategies in Columbia School theory (cf. García 1975; Reid 1995). The communicative strategies have shown the correlations of the invariant meanings of both moods with different language systems that contextually share the semantic domain of the Occurrence System. These communicative strategies have been contributed to by the meanings of the Indicative and the Subjunctive. Based on this, I have made predictions about the distribution of both moods in specific linguistic contexts. I have postulated that the preferred use of one mood over the other reflects the degree of the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence as well as the encoder’s focus on affirmation versus negation of an occurrence. The meanings of both moods have motivated the systematic character of their distributions that have been found in texts of different styles and genres. The statistical results have shown that the Subjunctive is preferred in linguistic contexts that deemphasize the encoder’s commitment to an occurrence. Among these are entities with indefinite articles, impersonal constructions, or indirect word order. In addition, the Subjunctive favors negation that also implies an alternative. The Indicative favors affirmation and linguistic contexts that emphasize the encoder’s commitment such as entities with definite articles, personal constructions, or direct word order. Based on the meanings of the Subjunctive and the Indicative, I have made predictions about their distribution within “macro-level” discourse. I have applied “from sign to text” and “from text to sign” analyses to texts of different styles and genres. These analyses have shown that the postulated invariant meanings motivate the consistent distribution of both moods for specific contexts or characters throughout different texts. I have postulated the System of Relevance whose interlock with the Occurrence System has explained the disfavoring of the Imperfect and the Pluper-

Concluding remarks 257

fect Subjunctives from speech. This disfavoring happened across time because of the diachronic narrowing of the meaning of the Subjunctive. 8. I have provided a contrastive diachronic analysis of Old and Contemporary French Subjunctives. My hypothesis is that the Old French Subjunctive meant the broad uncertainty of an occurrence, referred to as Occurrence Questioned. It was more abstract than the Contemporary French Subjunctive, meaning a more specific Alternative to occurrence. The broader meaning of the Old French Subjunctive contributed to its more frequent use with more syntactic and pragmatic functions. On the one hand, the diachronic narrowing of the meaning of the Subjunctive reduced the number of functions that this mood performs in Contemporary French. However, on the other hand, it allowed for others such as its use for subjective comment. 9. I have postulated the meanings of the System of Relevance. The Present Subjunctive means More Relevant occurrence/alternative, whereas the Imperfect Subjunctive means Less Relevant occurrence/alternative for both Old and Contemporary French. These meanings underlie the distinction between occurrences or their alternative whose outcome concerns the encoder directly and those whose outcome does not concern the encoder. 10. The meanings of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives have motivated the systematic character of their distributions in texts of different styles and genres. In Old and Contemporary French, the System of Relevance correlates with the System of Person that contextually shares the semantic domain of the System of Relevance. The Present Subjunctive favors the subjects in the first person that refers to the encoder directly. The Imperfect Subjunctive is preferred for the subjects in the third person that does not refer to the encoder directly. For both periods, the non-random distribution of the Present and the Imperfect Subjunctives has been illustrated by their consistent appearance both in individual sentences and within entire texts. I believe that this book contributes to the general understanding of French mood as well as to the principles of its use by native speakers. The tenets of this volume have been explained to groups of advanced students who learn French as a foreign language. According to my observations, despite the abstractness of the invariant meanings of the signs, my point of view provided them with a coherent explanation for sentence-oriented lists of uses and exceptions from them. The ideas formulated in this volume may be also useful in translating both to French and from French to other languages. I have also proposed several hypotheses that require a more detailed analysis and will be the subjects of further research. In particular, I have made a hypothesis concerning the Focus System of word order in French, originally proposed


by Gildin (1982, 1989). I have applied it to word order in French interrogative sentences. Following sign-oriented contrastive analyses of the System of Differentiation (articles, in traditional terminology), proposed for English (Diver 1986), Spanish (Klein 1976) and Hebrew (Tobin 1997b), I have postulated the French System of Differentiation. I have also postulated the invariant meaning of the Conditional in Contemporary French. The Conditional is opposed to the Subjunctive. The former means the broader uncertainty of an occurrence, including questioned (doubtful, possible, hypothetical) occurrences, whereas the latter means a more specific alternative to an occurrence. This hypothesis allows me to account for the fact that in Contemporary French, especially in spoken informal French, speakers tend to replace the Subjunctive by the Conditional in certain contexts. Another subject for further study is the invariant meaning of the Conditional in Old French. Finally, by this study, I have attempted to show that language is a symbolic tool whose structure is shaped both by its communicative function and by the characteristics of its users.

List of references

Andersson, S. 1972. “L’emploi du subjonctif après un superlative.” Moderna Språk 66: 156–162. Aphek, E. and Tobin, Y. 1988. Word Systems in Modern Hebrew: Implications and Applications. Leiden & New York: E. J. Brill. Austin, J. L. 1970. Quand dire, c’est faire. Introduction, traduction et commentaire Gilles Lane. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Titre original: How to Do Things with Words. Bally, Ch. 1965. Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: Francke. Barbaud, Ph. 1991. “Subjunctive and ECP.” In New Analyses in Romance Linguistics, D. Wanner and D. A. Kibbee (eds), 125–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barral, M. 1965. “Remarques sur l’emploi des temps du subjonctif en français moderne : Valeurs temporelles et modales.” Revue des Langues Romanes 79 : 39–78. Barral, M. 1978. “Remarques sur l’emploi du présent de narration et la concordance des temps du subjonctif.” In Mélanges de philologie romane offerts à Charles Camproux, 623–635. Montpellier : Centre d’Estudis Occitans. Barral, M. 1980. L’imparfait du subjonctif : Étude sur l’emploi et la concordance des temps du subjonctif. Paris : A. et J. Picard. Benveniste, É. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale, 1. Paris : Gallimard. Beöthy, E. and Altmann, G. 1984a. “The Diversification of Meaning of Hungarian Verbal Prefixes II.” Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 8: 29–37. Beöthy, E. and Altmann, G. 1984b. “Semantic Diversification of Hungarian Verbal Prefixes III.” In Glottometrika 7, U. Rothe (ed.), 45–56. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Blücher, K. 1979. “Les niveaux fonctionnels du subjonctif en espagnol, en français et en italien.” Revue Romane 14 : 16–58. Bolinger, D. 1977. Meaning and Form. London & New York: Longman. Bonnard, H. 1977. “Le mode après après.” Français moderne 45 : 300–304. Börjeson, L. 1966. “La fréquence du subjonctif dans les subordonnées complétives introduites par “que” étudiée dans des textes français contemporains.” Studia-Neophilologica 38 : 3–64. Boysen, G. 1971. Subjonctif et hiérarchie : Étude sur l’emploi du subjonctif dans les propositions complétives objets de verbes en français moderne. Odense : Odense U.P. Brunot, F. 1965. La pensée et la langue. Méthode, principes et plan d’une théorie nouvelle du langage appliquée au français. Paris : Masson et Cie. Brunot, F. and Bruneau, Ch. 1969. Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française. Paris : Masson et Cie. Canut, C. and Ledegen, G. 1998. “Après que ... ou la fluctuation des modes en français parlé.” Langage et Société 85 : 25–53. Cellard, J. 1996. Le subjonctif. Comment l’écrire ? – quand l’employer ? Paris : Duculot. Chevalier, J.-C., Blanche-Benveniste, C., Arrivé, M. and Peytard, J. 1973. Grammaire Larousse du français contemporain. Paris : Larousse. Chomsky, N. 1984. Lectures on Government and Binding: the Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.


Cohen, M. 1965. Le subjonctif en français contemporain. Paris : Société d’édition d’enseignement supérieur. Contini-Morava, E. 1983. Tense and Non-Tense in Swahili Grammar. Columbia University, Ph.D. Dissertation. Contini-Morava, E. 1995. “Introduction: On Linguistic Sign Theory.” In E. Contini-Morava and B. Sussman Goldberg (eds), 1–31. Contini-Morava, E. and Sussman Goldberg, B. (eds). 1995. Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Contini-Morava, E., Kirsner, R. S. and Rodriguez-Bachiller, B. (eds). 2004. Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Corbeil, J.-C. 1971. Les structures syntaxiques du français moderne. Les éléments fonctionnels dans la phrase. Paris : Klincksieck. Cox, T. J. 1986. “Remedies for Subjunctive Anxiety.” The French Review 60-1: 65–70. Culioli, A. 1999. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Formalisation et opérations de repérage. Tome 2. Paris : Ophrys. Culioli, A. 2000 [1990]. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Opérations et représentations. Tome 1. Paris : Ophrys. Damourette, J. and Pichon, É. 1968[1936]. Des mots à la pensée. Essai de grammaire de la langue française, tome V. Paris : d’Artrey. Davis, J. 2002. “Rethinking the Place of Statistics in Columbia School Analysis.” In W. Reid, R. Otheguy and N. Stern (eds), 65–90. Davis, J. 2004. “Revisiting the Gap between Meaning and Message.” In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner and B. Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds), 155–173. De Boer, C. 1947. Syntaxe du français moderne. Leiden : Universitaire Pers Leiden. Diver, W. 1969. “The System of Relevance of the Homeric Verb.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia XII: 45–68. Diver, W. 1980. “The Ecology of Language.” Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 1–5. Diver, W. 1981. “On Defining the Discipline.” Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 59–117. Diver, W. 1986. “The Grammar of Modern English.” Unpublished textbook, Columbia University. Diver, W. 1987. “The Dual.” Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 100–114. Diver, W. 1990. “And Now for Something Completely Different.” Unpublished MS. Diver, W. 1995. “Theory.” In E. Contini-Morava and B. Sussman Goldberg (eds), 43–114. Dolbec, J. and Le Flem, D. C. 1981. “Le subjonctif avec ‘après que’ : Faute ou variation significative ?” Langues et Linguistique 7 : 123–254. Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris : Hermann. Ducrot, O. 1982. “La notion du sujet parlant.” In Recherches sur la philosophie et le langage, 65–92. Université de Grenoble. Ducrot, O. 1984. Le dit et le dire. Paris : Minuit. Eriksson, B. 1979. L’emploi des modes dans la subordonnée relative en français moderne. Uppsala : Almqvist & Wiksell. Foulet, L. 1972. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris : Honoré Champion. Fradkin, R. A. 1986 [1985]. Markedness Theory and the Verb Systems of Russian and Arabic: Aspect, Tense, and Mood. Indiana University, Ph.D. Dissertation.

List of references 261

García, E. C. 1975. The Role of Theory in Linguistic Analysis: The Spanish Pronoun System. Amsterdam: North Holland. García, E. C. 1983. “Context Dependence of Language and of Linguistic Analysis.” In F. KleinAndreu (ed.), 181–207. García, E. C. 1985. “Quantity into Quality: Synchronic Indeterminacy and Language Change.” Lingua 67: 275–306. García, E. C. 1994. “Reversing the Status of Markedness.” Folia Linguistica 28: 329–361. García, E. C., van Putte, F. C. M. and Tobin, Y. 1987. “Cross Linguistic Equivalence, Translatability, and Contrastive Analysis.” Folia Linguistica 21: 373–405. Gildin, B. 1982. “The Focus System in French.” Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 57–70. Gildin, B. 1989. Subject Order in French: A Signal-Meaning Analysis. Columbia University, Ph.D. Dissertation. Ginestier, P. 1974. Anouilh : présentation, choix de textes, chronologie, bibliographie. Paris : Seghers. Givón, T. (ed.). 1979. Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Globevnik, D. 1983. “Modalités verbales du subjonctif à la lumière d’une analyse contrastive fonctionnelle dans les langues française et slovène.” Linguistica 23: 5–52. Gougenheim, G. 1965. “Indicatif et subjonctif. Lignes de fracture et transgressions.” In Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani, 319–324. Bucharest: Acad. Republicii Socialiste Romania. Gougenheim, G. 1969. Système grammatical de la langue française. Paris : Bibliothèque du «français moderne», d’Artey. Grevisse, M. 1961. Précis de Grammaire française. Gembloux : J. Duculot. Grevisse, M. 2001. Le bon usage. Grammaire française. Refondue par André Goosse. Gembloux : J. Duculot. Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” Syntax and Semantics 3: 41–59. Gross, M. 1978. “Correspondance entre forme et sens à propos du subjonctif.” Langue Française 39 : 49–65. Gross, M. 1986. Grammaire transformationnelle du français. Syntaxe du verbe. Paris : Cantilène. Guillaume, G. 1970. Temps et Verbe : théorie des aspects, des modes et des temps; suivi de l’architectonique du temps dans les langues classiques. Paris : Honoré Champion. Guillaume, G. 1971. Leçons de linguistique de Gustave Guillaume [1948–49]. Séries A : structure sémiologique et structure psychique de la langue française I. Publiées par Roch Valin, avec la collaboration de René Lesage. Québec : Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Haegeman, L. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Haillet, P.-P. 1995. “Le ‘Sens’ du subjonctif.” Revue de l’ACLA – Journal of the CAAL 17-2: 153– 165. Harmer, L. Ch. 1954. The French Language Today: Its Characteristics and Tendencies. London: Hutchinson’s University Library. Hejno, E. 1980. “Quelques aspects des subordonnées complétives avec le subjonctif dans le français d’aujourd’hui.” Roczniki Humanistyczne 28-5: 43–83. Hejno, E. 1988. Le subjonctif dans la relative. Lublin : Towarzystwo naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. Hewson, J. 1997. The Cognitive System of the French Verb. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.


Hjelmslev, L. 1966. Prolégomènes à une théorie du langage. Traduit du danois par U. Canger avec la collaboration d’Annick Wewer, suivi de La structure fondamentale du langage. Traduit de l’anglais par A.-M. Leonard. Paris : Minuit. Huffman, A. 1997 [1996]. The Categories of Grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hunnius, K. 1976. Der Modusgebrauch nach den Verben der Gemütsbewegung im Französischen. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Huot, H. 1986. “Le subjonctif dans les complétives: subjectivité et modalisation.” In La grammaire modulaire, R. Mitsou and D. Couquaux (eds), 81–111. Paris : Minuit. Imbs, P. 1953. Le subjonctif en français moderne, essai de grammaire descriptive. Strasbourg : Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg. Imbs, P. 1968. L’emploi des temps verbaux en français moderne. Essai de grammaire descriptive. Paris : Klincksieck. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jakobson, R. 1971. “Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums.” In Selected Writings II: Word and Language, 3–15. The Hague: Mouton. Jakobson, R. 1984. Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies, 1931–1981. Edited by L. R. Waugh and M. Halle, introduction L. R. Waugh. Berlin: Mouton. Jakobson, R. 1990. On Language. Edited by Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston. London: Harvard University Press. Jonge, R. de. 1999. “El uso del subjuntivo: ¿un problema para los hablantes de lenugas germánicas?” In Las lengas en la Europa comunitaria, proceedings from the 3rd International Colloquium, F. Sierra Martínez and C. Hernández González (eds), 75–84. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Jonge, R. de. 2001. “Spanish Subjunctive Mood: One Form, More Than One Meaning?” In Faux Titre: Adverbial Modification, R. Bok-Bennema, B. de Jonge, B. Kampers-Manhe and A. Molendijk (eds), 79–93. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Jonge, R. de. 2004. “The Relevance of Relevance in Linguistic Analysis: Spanish Subjunctive Mood.” In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner and B. Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds), 205–219. Kampers-Manhe, B. 1987. “Traitement formel du subjonctif après un superlatif.” In Études de linguistique française offertes à Robert de Dardel par ses amis et collègues, B. Kampers-Manhe and C. Vet (eds), 63–75. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kampers-Manhe, B. 1991. L’opposition subjonctif/indicatif dans les relatives. Amsterdam : Rodopi. Kampers-Manhe, B. 1998. “Je veux que parte Paul: A Neglected Construction.” In Romance Linguistics: Theoretical Perspectives, A. Schwegler, B. Tranel and M. Uribe-Etxebarria (eds and prefaces), 129–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kirsner, R. S. 1976. “On the Subjectless ‘Pseudo Passive’ in Standard Dutch and the Semantics of Background Agents.” In Subject and topic, Ch. Li (ed.), 385–415. New York: Academic Press. Kirsner, R. S. 1979b. “Deixis in Discourse: An Exploratory Quantitative Study of the Modern Dutch Demonstrative Adjectives.” In T. Givón (ed.), 355–376. Kirsner, R. S. 1983. “On the Use of Quantitative Discourse Data to Determine Inferential Mechanisms in Grammar.” In F. Klein-Andreu (ed.), 237–257. Kirsner, R. S. 1984. “On Determining the Appropriateness of Binary Semantic Features in Grammatical Analysis.” Quaderni di Semantica 51: 161–170. Kirsner, R. S. 1985. “Iconicity and Grammatical Meaning.” In Typological Studies in Language 6: Iconicity in Syntax, J. Haiman (ed.), 249–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


Kirsner, R. S. 1989. “Does Sign-Oriented Linguistics Have a Future? On Sign, Text, and the Falsifiability of Theoretical Constructs.” In Y. Tobin (ed.), 161–177. Kirsner, R. S. 1993. “From Meaning to Message in Two Theories: Cognitive and Saussurean Views of the Modern Dutch Demonstratives.” In Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, R. A. Geiger and B. Rudzka-Ostyn (eds), 81–114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kirsner, R. S. 2002. “The Future of a Minimalist Linguistics in a Maximalist World.” In W. Reid, R. Otheguy and N. Stern (eds), 339–371. Kirsner, R. S. 2004. “Introduction: On Paradigms, Analyses, and Dialogue.” In E. ContiniMorava, R. S. Kirsner and B. Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds), 1–21. Klein, F. 1976. “‘Same’ vs. ‘Different’ Crosslinguistically: the ‘Articles’ in English and Spanish.” In Proceedings from the Twelfth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 12: 413– 424. Klein-Andreu, F. (ed.). 1983. Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Krylov, J. K. 1982. “Einer Unterschung statisticher Gesatzmassigkeiten auf der paradigmatischen Ebene der Lexik naturlicher Sprachen.” In Studies on Zipf ’s Law, H. Guiter and M. P. Arapov (eds), 234–262. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Lalaire, L. 1998. La variation modale dans les subordonnées à temps fini du français moderne. Approche syntaxique. Bern : Peter Lang. Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, I: Theoretical Prerequisites. California: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. 2004. “Form, Meaning, and Behavior: The Cognitive Grammar Analysis of Double Subject Constructions.” In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner and B. RodriguezBachiller (eds), 21–61. Larreya, P. 1979. Énoncés performatifs. Présupposition. Éléments de sémantique et de pragmatique. Paris : Fernand Nathan. Larreya, P. 1984. Le possible et le nécessaire : modalités et auxiliaires modaux en anglais britannique. Paris : Fernand Nathan. Larreya, P. 1987. “Le subjonctif présent du français et ses équivalents verbaux en anglais.” Contrastes 14-15 : 163–192. Le Bidois, G. and Le Bidois, R. 1968a. Syntaxe du français moderne. Ses fondements historiques et psychologiques. Tome 1. Paris : Auguste Picard. Le Bidois, G. and Le Bidois, R. 1968b. Syntaxe du français moderne. Ses fondements historiques et psychologiques. Tome 2. Paris : Auguste Picard. Leeman-Bouix, D. 1994. Grammaire du verbe français : des formes au sens. Modes, aspects, temps, auxiliaires. Paris : Fernand Nathan. Lunn, P. V. 1989a. “Spanish Mood and the Prototype of Assertability.” Linguistics 27-4: 687– 702. Lunn, P. V. 1989b. “The Spanish Subjunctive and ‘Relevance’.” In Studies in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the 17th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, C. Kirschner and J. DeCesaris (eds), 249–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mandelbrot, B. 1953. “An Information Theory of the Statistical Structure of Language.” In Communication Theory, W. Jackson (ed.), 486–502. London. Martin, R. 1983. Pour une logique de sens. Paris : Presses universitaires de France. Martinet, A. 1979. Grammaire fonctionnelle du français. Paris : Crédif Didier. Mauger, G. 1968. Grammaire pratique du français d’aujourd’hui. Langue parlée. Langue écrite. Paris : Hachette.


Menanteau, D. 1986. “Le mode verbal, classe grammaticale ?” La Linguistique 22-1 : 69–80. Menzerath, P. 1954. Die Architektonik des deutschen Wortschatzes. Bohn : Dummler. Moignet, G. 1959. Essai sur le mode subjonctif en latin postclassique et en ancien français. Paris : Presses universitaires de France. Moignet, G. 1981. Systématique de la langue française. Paris : Klincksieck. Morel, M.-A. 1996. La concession en français. Paris : Ophrys. Nathan, G. S. and Epro, M. W. 1984. “Negative Polarity and the Romance Subjunctive.” In Papers from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Ph. Baldi (ed.), 517–529. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nølke, H. 1993. Le regard du locuteur. Pour une linguistique des traces énonciatives. Paris : Kimé. Nølke, H. 2001. Le regard du locuteur 2. Pour une linguistique des traces énonciatives. Paris : Kimé. Nordahl, H. 1969. Les systèmes du subjonctif corrélatif. Étude sur l’emploi des modes dans la subordonnée complétive en français moderne. Bergen/Oslo : Universitetsforlaget. Otheguy, R. 2002. “Saussurean Anti-nomenclaturism in Grammatical Analysis: A Comparative Theoretical Perspective.” In W. Reid, R. Otheguy and N. Stern (eds), 373–403. Penhallurick, J. 1981. A Form-Content Analysis of the Modern English Systems of Time and Occurrence. Columbia University, Ph.D. Dissertation. Poplack, S. 1992. “The Inherent Variability of the French Subjunctive.” In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Ch. Laeufer and T. A. Morgan (eds), 235–263. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Progovac, L. 1993. “Subjunctive: the (Mis)behavior of Anaphora and Negative Polarity.” The Linguistic Review 10-1: 37–59. Putte, F. van. 1988. “Frequency in Communicative Perspective: Some Word Order Phenomena in Spanish.” In The Prague School and its Legacy in Linguistics, Literature, Semiotics, Folklore, and the Arts, Y. Tobin (ed.), 91–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Regula, M. 1936. “La fonction du subjonctif dans le français moderne.” Revue de Linguistique Romane 12 : 289–350. Regula, M. 1966a. Historische Grammatik des Franzosischen. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Regula, M. 1966b. “Quelques remarques sur l’article de M. H. Glättli traitant du subjonctif.” Revue de Linguistique Romane 30 : 198–203. Reid, W. 1974. “The Saussurian Sign as a Control in Linguistic Analysis.” Semiotexte 1-1: 31–53. Reid, W. 1977. “The Quantitative Validation of a Grammatical Hypothesis: The Passé Simple and the Imparfait.” Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 59–77. Reid, W. 1983 [1979]. The Human Factor in Linguistic Analysis: the Passé simple and the Imparfait. Columbia University, Ph.D. Dissertation. Reid, W. 1991. Verb Number in English: A Functional Explanation. London & New York: Longman. Reid, W. 1995. “Quantitative Analysis in Columbia School Theory.” In E. Contini-Morava and B. Sussman Goldberg (eds), 115–151. Reid, W. 2004. “Monosemy, Homonymy and Polysemy.” In E. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner and B. Rodriguez-Bachiller (eds), 93–130. Reid, W. and Gildin, B. 1979. “Semantic Analysis without the Sentence.” In The Elements: A Parasession in Linguistic Units and Levels, H. Clyne and Hocbauer (eds), 163–174. Chicago Linguistic Society.


Reid, W., Otheguy, R. and Stern, N. (eds). 2002. Signal, Meaning, and Message: Perspectives on Sign-based Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Šabršula, J. 1974. “Subjonctif et hiérarchie.” Philologica Pragensia 17: 147–153. Sato, F. 1974. “Valeur modale du subjonctif en français contemporain.” Le Français Moderne 42 : 34–41. Saussure, F. de. 1983. Course in General Linguistics [1916], ed. by Ch. Bally, A. Sechehaye, with the coll. of A. Riedlinger, trans. annotated by R. Harris. London: Duckworth. Saussure, F. de. 2001 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale, publié par Ch. Bally et A. Sechehaye avec la collaboration de A. Riedlinger. Paris : Payot. Schifko, P. 1967. Subjonctif und Subjuntivo: Zum Gebrauch des Konjunktivs im Französischen und Spanischen. Vienna: W. Braumüller. Schooneveld, C. H. van. 1989. “Syntagmatic Relations and Paradigms: Tenses and Moods in Ancient Greek Verbal Structure: A Semantic Analysis of the Ancient Greek Verb System.” In Y. Tobin (ed.), 99–121. Searle J. R., Kiefer, F. and Bierwisch, M. (eds). 1980. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Smyth, H. W. 1920. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Soutet, O. 2000. Le subjonctif en français. Paris : Ophrys. Stefanini, J. 1992. Linguistique et langue française. Paris : Centre National de la Rechercher Scientifique. Tobin, Y. (ed.). 1989. From Sign to Text: A Semiotic View of Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tobin, Y. 1982. “Asserting One’s Existence in Modern Hebrew: A Saussurian-Based Analysis of the Domain of Attention in Selected ‘Existentials’.” Lingua 58: 341–368. Tobin, Y. 1988. “Sign: Context: Text: Theoretical and Methodological Implications for Translation: The Dual Number in Modern Hebrew a Case Point.” In Textlinguistik und Fachsprache, R. Arntz (ed.), 449–468. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Georg Olms. Tobin, Y. 1989. “Space, Time and Point-of-View in the Modern Hebrew Verb.” In Y. Tobin (ed.), 61–91. Tobin, Y. 1990. Semiotics and Linguistics. London: Longman. Tobin, Y. 1993a. Aspect in the English Verb: Process and Result in Language. London & New York: Longman. Tobin, Y. 1993b. “To Remember and Forget: Masken in Frankfurt. The Semiotics of Prejudice in Translating an Israeli Holocaust Novel into German.” Folia Linguistica 27: 315–346. Tobin, Y. 1995. Invariance, Markedness and Distinctive Feature Analysis: A Contrastive Study of Sign Systems in English and Hebrew. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tobin, Y. 1997a. Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical Implications and Clinical Applications. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Tobin, Y. 1997b. “Same versus Different Crosslinguistically: The Articles in English, Spanish and Hebrew.” In Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs. Language History and Linguistics Modelling, 1831–1858. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Tobin, Y. and Aphek, E. 1985. “Analysis of Function Words Which Cause Problems in Hebrew as a Foreign Language.” In Reading for Professional Purposes: Methods and Materials in Teaching Languages, J. M. Ulijn and A. Pugh (eds), 90–103. Leuven: Acco. Tobin, Y. and Aphek, E. 1989. “The Role of Selected Prepositions and Conjunctions in the Reading of Hebrew as a Foreign Language.” Semitics 10: 10–23.


Togeby, K. 1982. Grammaire française. Volume II : Les Formes Personnelles du Verbe. Copenhague : Akademisk Forlag. Touratier, Ch. 1996. Le système verbal français. (Description morphologique et morphématique). Paris: Masson & Armand Colin. Van der Molen, W. 1923. Le subjonctif, sa valeur psychologique et son emploi dans la langue parlée. Zalt-Bommel : Van de Garde drukkerij. Vet, C. 1998. “Les sources de l’emploi du subjonctif dans les complétives.” In Prédication, assertion, information : Actes du colloque d’Uppsala en linguistique française, 6–9 juin 1996, M. Forsgren, K. Jonasson and H. Kronning (eds and forewords), 587–594. Uppsala: Uppsala University. Wagner, R. L. and Pinchon, J. 1962. Grammaire du français classique et moderne. Paris : Hachette. Wartburg von, W. and Zumthor, P. 1973. Précis de syntaxe du français contemporain. Berne : Francke. Wilmet, M. 1969. “‘Après que’ suivi du subjonctif.” La Linguistique 2 : 27–40. Wilmet, M. 1976. Études de morpho-syntaxe verbale. Paris : Klincksieck. Winters, M. E. 1989. “Diachronic Prototype Theory: On the Evolution of the French Subjunctive.” Linguistics 27-4: 703–730. Winters, M. E. 1993. “On the Semantic Structure of the French Subjunctive.” In Linguistic Perspectives on the Romance Languages, W.-J. Ashby, M. Mithun, G. Perissinotto and E. Raposo (eds), 271–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wunderli, P. 1976. Modus und Tempus. Beiträge zur synchronischen und diachronischen Morphosyntax der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge MA: AddisonWesley. Zubin, D. 1979. “Discourse Function in Morphology: The Focus System in German.” In T. Givón (ed.), 469–504. Zubin, D. and Köpcke, K.-M. 1985. “Cognitive Constraints on the Order of Subject and Object in German.” Studies in Language 9-1: 77–107.

Corpus Anouilh, J. 1958. Five Plays, translated by L. Galantière. New York: Hill and Wang. Anouilh, J. 1962. Fables. Paris : La Table Ronde. Anouilh, J. 1963. Théâtre complet de Jean Anouilh, préface de Pol Vandromme, tome I. Lausanne : La Guilde du Livre. Aragon, L. 1946. Aurelien, translated by E. Wilkins. London: Pilot Press. Aragon, L. 1972. Aurélien. Paris : Gallimard. Aymé, M. 1943. Le passe-muraille. Nouvelles. Paris : Gallimard. Aymé, M. 1947. Le vin de Paris. Nouvelles. Paris : Gallimard. Aymé, M. 1972. La Vouivre. Paris : Gallimard. Beauvoir, S. de. 1943. L’invitée. Paris : Gallimard. Beauvoir, S. de. 1966. She Came to Stay, translated from the French by Y. Moyse and R. Senhouse. London: Penguin Books. Bernanos, G. 1935. Un crime. Paris : Plon.


Béroul. 1972. Le roman de Tristan : poème du XIIe siècle. Édité par Ernest Muret. 4e ed. revue par L. M. Defourques. Paris : Honoré Champion. Camus, A. 1947a. Caligula and Cross Purpose (Le Malentendu), translated by S. Gilbert. London: Hamish Hamilton. Camus, A. 1947b. La peste. Paris : Gallimard. Camus, A. 1958. Caligula suivi de Le Malentendu. Paris : Gallimard. Camus, A. 1960 [1948]. The Plague, translated from the French by S. Gilbert. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Carroll, L. 1961. Alice In Wonderland. Dent: Everyman’s Library. Colette. 1951. Short Novels of Colette, with an introduction by Glenway Wescott. New York: Dial Press. Colette. 1970 [1960]. Œuvres de Colette, volume II, illustrées par Yves Brayer [et al.]. Paris : Flammarion. Gide, A. 1949. Two Symphonies, translated from the French by Dorothy Bussy. London: Cassell. Gide, A. 1952. The Vatican Cellars (Les Caves du Vatican), translated from the French by Dorothy Bussy. London: Cassell. Gide, A. 1963 [1925]. La symphonie pastorale. Paris : Gallimard. Gide, A. 1975 [1922]. Les caves du Vatican. Paris : Gallimard. Ionesco, E. 1959. Rhinocéros. Paris : Gallimard. Ionesco, E. 1960. Rhinoceros, and other plays, translated by D. Prouse. New York: Grove Press. Kundera, M. 1984. L’insoutenable légèreté de l’être, traduit du tchèque par F. Kérel. Paris : Gallimard. Kundera, M. 1985. The Unbearable Lightness of Being, translated from the Czech by M. H. Heim. London: Harper Colophon. La chanson de Roland. 1872. Texte critique, accompagné d’une trad. nouv. et précédé d’une introd. historique par Léon Gautier. Tours: A. Mame. La chanson de Roland. 1937. Text of the Oxford MS. London: Faber & Faber. La vie de Saint Alexis : poème du XIe siècle. 1967. Texte critique de Gaston Paris. Paris : Honoré Champion. La vie de saint Alexis : poème du XIe siècle. 1983. Traduit en français moderne par Guy René Mermier et Sarah Melhado White. Paris : Honoré Champion. Les Tristan en vers. 1999. Éd. comprenant texte et trad. nouvelle par Jean Charles Payen. Tristan/de Béroul. Tristan/de Thomas. Visited March 27, 2003. Document fourni par la société Bibliopolis, URL : http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k101412s Lubetkin, Z. 1979. biymei xilayon u-mered. Tel-Aviv: Beit Loxamei Ha-Getaot and Kibbutz Hameuchad. Malraux, A. 1968 [1930]. La voie royale. Paris : Gallimard. Marie de France. 1974. Die Lais. Herausgegeben von Karl Warnke. Mit vergleichenden Anmerkungen von Reinhold Köhler, nebst Erganzungen von Johannes Bolte und einer Anhang “Der Lai von Guingamor” herausgegeben von Peter Kusel. 3. verb. Aufl. Genève : Slatkine Reprints. Marie de France. 1996. Le Fresne. Translated by Judith P. Shoaf. Visited March 27, 2003. URL: http://web.english.ufl.edu/exemplaria/intro.html Maurois, A. 1946. Toujours l’inattendu arrive. Contes et Nouvelles. Paris : Deux-Rives. Maurois, A. 1949. Maurois Reader. Novels, Novelettes and Short Stories, introduction by A. Fremantle. New York: Didier. Merle, R. 1962. L’île. Paris : Gallimard.


Montherlant, H. de. 1936. Les jeunes filles. Paris : Gallimard. Montherlant, H. de. 1954. Les Olympiques. Paris : Gallimard. Rossner, J. 1976. Looking for Mr. Goodbar. New York: Simon & Schuster. Sagan, F. 1962. Les violons parfois. Paris : Julliard. Saint-Exupéry, A. de. 1943. The Little Prince, translated from the French by K. Woods. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. Saint-Exupéry, A. de. 1946. Le Petit Prince. Paris : Gallimard. Simenon, G. 1952. Le revolver de Maigret, Paris : Presses de La Cité. The Life of Saint Alexis. 2006 [1997]. Transcription and Translation by Joseph E. Price. Visited March 27, 2003. URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8716/alexis-english. html#english1 The Song of Roland. 1937. Text of the Oxford MS English translation. London: Faber & Faber. Vian, B. 1962. L’Arrache-Cœur. Paris : Jean-Jacques Pauvert.

Jerusalem Post Le Figaro Libération

Name index

A Altmann, G. 67 Andersson, S. 159 Anouilh, J. 17, 97, 98, 111, 182, 184–187 Aphek, E. 134 Aragon, L. 135 Austin, J. 37 Aymé, M. xix, 36, 87, 88, 90, 95, 102, 116, 117 B Bally, Ch. xxvi, 5, 7 Barbaud, Ph. xxvi, 11 Barral, M. 47, 197, 205, 206 Beauvoir, S. de 125, 126 Benveniste, É. 56, 63 Beöthy, E. 67 Bernanos, G. 90, 91, 104, 105, 118, 153, 156, 157 Blücher, K. xxvi, 13–17, 33, 96 Bolinger, D. 45 Bonnard, H. 141 Börjeson, L. xxi, xxvi, 7, 125 Boysen, G. xix, xxi, xxvi, 6, 7, 13, 36, 96, 103, 117, 137 Bruneau, Ch. xxvii, 33, 203 Brunot, F. xxvi, xxvii, 16, 17, 33, 100, 115, 201, 203 C Camus, A. 28, 90, 111, 115, 116, 149, 150, 161, 162, 168–173, 241 Canut, C. xxii, 8, 142 Carroll, L. 167, 168, 181 Cellard, J. xvii, xxvi Chevalier, J.-C. xxvi, 108, 202 Chomsky, N. xxvi, 9, 10, 12 Cohen, M. xxii, xxvi, 8, 13, 15–17, 91, 96, 100, 157 Colette 94, 147, 161, 240

Contini-Morava, E. xvii, xxvi, 9, 10, 31, 40–42, 57, 65, 73, 89 Corbeil, J.-C. xxvi Cox, T. J. xxvi Culioli, A. 37 D Damourette, J. xxvii, 12, 32, 34, 148, 201, 203, 204 Davis, J. 70, 71, 109, 164, 165 De Boer, C. xxvi, 13, 16–19, 132 Diver, W. xxv–xxvii, xxix, 3, 9, 22, 23, 26, 35, 40, 49, 57, 60, 61, 64, 66, 70, 71, 75, 80, 83, 107, 199, 207, 218, 258 Dolbec, J. 142 Ducrot, O. 37, 39 E Epro, M. W. 76 Eriksson, B. 110, 160 F Foulet, L. xxvi, 5 Fradkin, R. A. 45 G García, E. C. 41, 45, 64, 70, 78, 83, 114, 134, 213, 225, 256 Gide, A. xviii, xxii–xxiv, 4, 6–8, 10, 11, 93, 98, 99, 119, 122, 130, 154, 212, 245, 246 Gildin, B. 41, 49–51, 61, 85, 86, 123, 258 Ginestier, P. 184 Globevnik, D. xxvi Gougenheim, G. xxvi, 16, 17, 201 Grevisse, M. xxvii, 28, 34, 87–89, 91, 100, 101, 108, 139, 157, 197, 201–203

Grice, H. P. 37 Gross, M. xxi, xxvi, 5 Guillaume, G. xxvii, 20, 21, 43, 47, 48, 58, 78, 100, 118, 119, 142, 148, 159, 163, 197, 205, 219, 246 H Haegeman, L. 10 Haillet, P.-P. xxvi Harmer, L. xxiv, xxvi, 3, 5, 89, 106, 115, 121, 139, 141, 148, 150, 203, 209 Hejno, E. xxvi, 159 Hewson, J. xxiv, 47, 58, 91, 139, 255 Hjelmslev, L. 56 Huffman, A. 30, 31 Hunnius, K. xvii, 132 Huot, H. xxvi, 12, 124, 138, 148 I Imbs, P. xxvi, 17, 19, 20, 201 Ionesco, E. 89, 100, 101, 138, 139, 156, 245 J Jackendoff, R. 37 Jakobson, R. 44, 45, 79 Jonge, R. de xxvii, 35, 36, 76, 151 K Kampers-Manhe, B. xxvi, 12, 110, 159 Kirsner, R. S. 12, 13, 29–31, 40, 41, 58, 60, 136, 207 Klein, F. 107, 258 Krylov, J. K. 67 Kundera, M. 101, 102, 182, 188–195, 246, 247

270 Name index

L Lalaire, L. xxi, xxvi, 10, 11, 125, 132, 133, 141 Langacker, R. W. 26, 27, 29–31, 42 Larreya, P. xxvii, 37, 38, 58 Le Bidois, G. & R. xxvii, 32, 33, 89, 129 Ledegen, G. xxii, 8, 142 Leeman-Bouix, D. 129, 141, 156 Le Flem, D. C. 142 Lubetkin, Z. 235 Lunn, P. V. 79, 83 M Malraux, A. 122, 123, 134, 139 Mandelbrot, B. 67 Martin, R. xxvii, 37 Martinet, A. xxvii, 23–26, 99 Mauger, G. xvii, xix, 133, 142, 201 Maurois, A. 6, 68, 86, 87, 97, 99, 119, 120, 122, 136, 139, 209, 239 Menanteau, D. 23 Menzerath, P. 67 Merle, R. 92, 93, 106, 131, 138, 154, 155 Moignet, G. xvii, 5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 47, 51, 89, 205 Montherlant, H. de 64, 65, 102, 103, 111, 112, 150, 153, 155, 211, 242, 243, 249, 250 Morel, M.-A. 105 N Nathan, G. S. 76 Nølke, H. xxvii, 3, 39, 41, 42, 116, 129, 255

Nordahl, H. xxvii, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 88, 89, 96, 103, 113, 114, 117, 125, 127, 131–133, 139, 148, 157 O Otheguy, R. 13 P Penhallurick, J. 207 Pichon, É. xxvii, 12, 32, 34, 148, 201, 203, 204 Pinchon, J. xxvii, 36, 93, 132, 157, 201 Poplack, S. xxi, xxii, xxvi, 5, 6, 8 Progovac, L. xxvi Putte, F. van 41, 134 R Regula, M. xxvii, 17, 201 Reid, W. xxvii, 23, 25, 26, 40, 41, 49–51, 55, 56, 58–64, 66, 70–72, 75, 83, 98, 107, 112, 147, 170, 253, 256 Rossner, J. 167, 168 S Šabršula, J. 117, 137 Sagan, F. 126, 127 Saint-Exupéry, A. de 108, 131, 213 Sato, F. xxvii Saussure, F. de xxv, 23, 26, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 49, 57, 60–63, 77, 80 Schifko, P. xvii Schooneveld, C. H. van 45, 46 Searle, J. R. 37

Simenon, G. 68, 69, 104, 105, 111, 168, 174–178, 241, 243 Smyth, H. W. 31 Soutet, O. xvii, 22, 62, 88, 93, 94, 101, 133, 137, 142, 156, 252 Stefanini, J. 22, 47, 142, 143, 205 T Tobin, Y. xxv, xxvi, xxviii, 9, 13, 21–26, 32, 41, 44–48, 50, 55, 57–62, 65–67, 69, 73, 74, 76, 78, 83, 84, 96, 101, 103, 107, 108, 115, 134, 163, 165, 167, 168, 181, 219, 231, 249, 252, 253, 258 Togeby, K. xxvii, 34, 201 Touratier, Ch. xxvii, 13, 15–17 V Van der Molen, W. xxii, xxvii, 32, 33, 35, 129 Vet, C. xxvi Vian, B. xx, 4, 87, 104, 111, 162, 163, 210, 240–243, 246 W Wagner, R. L. xxvii, 36, 93, 132, 157, 201 Wartburg von, W. xxvii, 17, 18 Wilmet, M. xxii, 142 Winters, M. E. xxvii, 24, 28, 29, 31, 49, 67, 68, 77, 141 Wunderli, P. xxii, 141 Z Zipf, G. K. 67 Zubin, D. 40, 41 Zumthor, P. xxvii, 17, 18

Subject index

A Alternative (meaning) xxv, xxvii, xxviii, 26, 36, 41, 63, 64, 68, 72, 76–78, 80, 83, 85, 86, 89, 112, 113, 129, 152, 169, 183, 189, 207, 213, 215, 218, 219, 244, 245, 252, 253, 256, 257 C Cognitive approach/grammar xxvii, 3, 26–31, 49 Columbia School xxv–xxvii, 3, 9, 13, 14, 22, 25, 29–32, 40–44, 51, 55, 57, 60–63, 65, 66, 70, 73, 80, 83, 89, 218, 255, 256 Conditional 6, 37, 38, 201, 206, 246, 258 Contemporary French xix, xxviii, xxix, 5, 18, 28, 33, 91, 112, 129, 142, 198, 202, 203, 207–214, 218–220, 239, 244–247, 252, 253, 257, 258 F Focus System 60, 85, 123–126, 257 From sign to text xxviii, 165, 167, 168, 174, 196, 231, 256 From text to sign xxviii, 165, 181, 182, 188, 196, 249, 256 Functional approach/grammar xxvi, xxvii, 3, 13, 15, 16, 21, 23, 29, 32, 49, 141 G Generative approach/grammar xxvi, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 49, 132 I Imperfect Subjunctive xxviii, xxix, 6, 64, 65, 112, 197–199,

201, 203–206, 211, 217–219, 221, 224–229, 231–237, 240, 242–247, 250–254, 256, 257 Indicative xvii–xxi, xxiii– xxx, 3–7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 32–39, 41, 45, 47–51, 62, 66–68, 71, 73, 75, 76, 78–80, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95–97, 99–103, 106, 108, 110–112, 114–116, 118, 120–122, 124, 125, 127, 130, 132–143, 145, 147–153, 156–159, 162–165, 167, 169, 171, 172, 174–179, 182, 183, 185–187, 189, 191, 194–197, 204, 205, 207, 209, 210, 212–215, 229, 231, 240, 252, 255, 256 Interlock 55, 63, 64, 69, 73, 113, 219, 256 Invariant meaning xxv, xxvii–xxx, 7, 9, 13, 21, 23, 26, 31, 32, 35, 41, 43–45, 48, 50, 51, 55, 57–60, 62–64, 66, 68, 69, 71–77, 79, 80, 83, 89, 92, 96, 97, 101, 103, 110, 112, 117–119, 123, 129, 133, 138, 152, 153, 159, 163, 165, 167, 169, 174, 175, 179, 182, 183, 189, 196, 197, 199, 203, 205, 208, 211, 214, 219, 220, 225, 229, 231, 232, 237, 239, 242, 245–247, 249, 250, 252–257 M Macro-level (analysis) xxviii, 80, 196, 231 Micro-level (analysis) xxviii, 80, 84, 86, 163, 165, 170, 223, 229, 231, 239 Minimal pair xxiv, 9, 14, 15, 19, 64, 110, 120, 127

O Occurrence (meaning) xxv, 26, 36, 41, 63, 64, 72, 76, 78, 80, 83, 85, 86, 113, 129, 169, 183, 189, 207, 256 Occurrence Questioned xxviii, 207, 208, 218, 219, 227, 229, 232, 237, 246, 253, 257 Occurrence System xxvii– xxix, 62, 64, 66, 73, 75, 76, 78, 80, 83–85, 110, 112, 113, 124, 129, 147, 163, 197, 207, 219, 253, 255, 256 Odds Ratio 109, 111, 121, 152, 153, 171, 172, 174, 179, 187, 196, 218, 226, 233, 234, 243, 251 Old French xxviii, xxix, 33, 129, 198, 199, 203, 207, 208, 210, 212–214, 219, 223, 224, 227–229, 231, 237, 243, 247, 252, 253, 257, 258 P Perfect Subjunctive xxviii, xxix, 23, 197–199, 203, 204, 206 Pluperfect Subjunctive xxviii, xxix, 6, 197–199, 202–206, 252, 257 Present Subjunctive xxviii, xxix, 64, 67, 198, 199, 201, 203, 204, 206, 215, 218–220, 223–227, 229, 231–233, 235– 237, 240, 241, 243, 244, 247, 250, 252–254, 257 S Semantic domain/substance xxviii, xxix, 55, 62, 64, 73, 75, 80, 83, 85, 107, 123, 163, 218, 220, 227, 255, 257

272 Subject index

Sign xxv–xxviii, xxx, 3, 21, 23, 31, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69–75, 80, 83, 85, 107, 110, 123, 144, 163, 165, 167, 170, 181, 183, 188, 189, 195, 196, 249–252, 255 Sign-oriented grammar/ approach xxvi, xxvii, xxix, 3, 13, 21, 24, 25, 41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 55, 58, 61, 65, 66, 73, 96, 100, 107, 139, 142, 163, 181, 205, 252, 255, 258

Speech xxi, xxv, 9, 16, 22, 30, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43, 46, 51, 55, 61, 142, 202, 206, 211, 224, 252–254, 257 System of Differentiation 107, 110, 112, 258 System of Relevance xxix, 64, 76, 112, 113, 199, 218–221, 223, 227, 229, 239, 242, 244, 247, 250, 252, 253, 256, 257

W Word Order 11, 44, 61, 65, 85, 121, 123–128, 256, 257 Writing 98, 202, 206, 253 Z Z-value 109, 111, 121, 152, 171–173, 179, 188, 196, 218, 226, 233, 243, 251

In the series Studies In Functional And Structural Linguistics the following volumes have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 59 Dreer, Igor: Expressing the Same by the Different. The subjunctive vs the indicative in French. 2007. xxx, 272 pp. 58 Munat, Judith (ed.): Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts. x, 282 pp. + index. Expected October 2007 57 Davis, Joseph, Radmila J. Gorup and Nancy Stern (eds.): Advances in Functional Linguistics. Columbia School beyond its origins. 2006. x, 344 pp. 56 Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo: Dramatized Discourse. The Mandarin Chinese ba-construction. 2005. xxii, 337 pp. 55 Beedham, Christopher: Language and Meaning. The structural creation of reality. 2005. xiv, 225 pp. 54 Štekauer, Pavol: Meaning Predictability in Word Formation. Novel, context-free naming units. 2005. xxii, 289 pp. 53 Eddington, David: Spanish Phonology and Morphology. Experimental and quantitative perspectives. 2004. xvi, 198 pp. 52 Gorlach, Marina: Phrasal Constructions and Resultativeness in English. A sign-oriented analysis. 2004. x, 151 pp. 51 Contini-Morava, Ellen, Robert S. Kirsner and Betsy Rodríguez-Bachiller (eds.): Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. 2004. viii, 389 pp. 50 Vachek, Josef: Dictionary of the Prague School of Linguistics. Translated from the French, German and Czech sources. In collaboration with Josef Dubský. Translated by Aleš Klégr, Pavlína Šaldová, Markéta Malá, Jan Čermák and Libuše Dušková. Edited by Libuše Dušková. 2003. x, 216 pp. 49 Hladký, Josef (ed.): Language and Function. To the memory of Jan Firbas. 2003. x, 339 pp. 48 Reid, Wallis, Ricardo Otheguy and Nancy Stern (eds.): Signal, Meaning, and Message. Perspectives on sign-based linguistics. 2002. xxii, 413 pp. 47 Martín-Vide, Carlos (ed.): Issues in Mathematical Linguistics. Workshop on Mathematical Linguistics, State College, PA, April 1998. 1999. xii, 214 pp. 46 Štekauer, Pavol: An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation. 1998. x, 192 pp. 45 Martín-Vide, Carlos (ed.): Mathematical and Computational Analysis of Natural Language. Selected papers from the 2nd International Conference on Mathematical Linguistics (ICML ’96), Tarragona, 1996. 1998. xviii, 391 pp. 44 Jessen, Michael: Phonetics and Phonology of Tense and Lax Obstruents in German. 1999. xx, 394 pp. 43 Andrews, Edna and Yishai Tobin (eds.): Toward a Calculus of Meaning. Studies in markedness, distinctive features and deixis. 1996. xxviii, 432 pp.

Expressing the Same by the Different: The subjunctive vs the indicative in French (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, Volume 59)

Expressing the Same by the Different: The subjunctive vs the indicative in French (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, Volume 59)

Indicative and Subjunctive Conditionals

Language And Meaning: The Structural Creation of Reality (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics)

Dictionary of the Prague School of Linguistics (Studies in Functional & Structural Linguistics)

Dictionary of the Prague School of Linguistics (Studies in Functional & Structural Linguistics)

Dramatized Discourse: The Mandarin Chinese Ba -construction (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics)

The Same In Any Language

On Being in the Same Place at the Same Time

Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Volume 31)

Functional Categories (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics)

Educational Studies in Mathematics - Volume 59

Structural and Functional Organization of the Synapse

The Minimalist Program (Current Studies in Linguistics)

The Word in Arabic (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics)

Phrasal Constructions and Resultativeness in English: A Sign-oriented Analysis (Studies in Functional & Structural Linguistics)

The Word in Arabic (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics)

Trends in the Advance French: Volume 2

The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts: Focus on Functional Categories (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders)

Advances in Parasitology Volume 59

Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar (Studies in Corpus Linguistics)

Linguistic Theory and Empirical Evidence (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics)

Advances in Agronomy, Volume 59

Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics)

Structural and Functional Relationships in Prokaryotes

Structural and Functional Relationships in Prokaryotes

The Acquisition of French in Different Contexts: Focus on Functional Categories

Marshall's Evolutionary Economics (Routledge Studies in the History Ofeconomics, 59)

The Art of Expressing the Human Body

The Art of Expressing the Human Body

The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 121)

Expressing the Same by the Different: The subjunctive vs the indicative in French (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, Volume 59)