Selección de la estructura del trike

4.2.9 Factors behind the revival of the mandative subjunctive

One of the theories put forward to explain the return of the mandative subjunctive in AmE is the influence of the (particularly Germanic) language backgrounds of immigrants to that country. This idea features in usage guides such as Bruce Fraser’s revised version of The Complete Plain Words (Gowers 1973: 150) and is proposed again by Övergaard (1995: 44–45). Övergaard’s suggestion is repeated in several later studies, including Leech et al. (2009: 67) and Hundt & Gardner (forthcoming), though compelling evidence in support of the theory has not been presented.

16 Crawford (2009) presents a different concept of trigger strength. In his study, strong triggers are those that are most likely to be followed by ‘mandates’, by which he means clauses containing subjunctives or modals.

Other suggested reasons, some more unlikely than others, include familiarity with subjunctives in the Authorised Version of the Bible (e.g. Kjellmer 2009: 248) and in legal/administrative English (e.g.

Haegeman 1986: 66), and a predilection for archaic expressions (Turner 1980: 273).¹⁷ An explanation based on more robust linguistic arguments has been put forward by Kjellmer (2009). This theory connects the revival with the way in which AmE and BrE complementation differed during the nineteenth century in environments where subjunctives had formerly appeared. Broadly speaking, it is claimed that in the nineteenth century AmE was reluctant to accept indicatives in irrealis contexts and used modals instead, while BrE used modals but also more readily accepted indicatives. A later apparent reluctance in AmE to use should,¹⁸ Kjellmer argues, might then have pushed AmE into using subjunctives to convey modality in mandative clauses, as indicatives were still unusual in these areas in AmE (and remain uncommon in mandative clauses in that variety).

No convincing explanation for the more recent return of the mandative subjunctive in BrE has been given other than American influence (for example, Övergaard 1995: 89) or Americanisation (Mair 2006: 193), building on an underlying familiarity with the continuing legal/administrative use (Gowers 1954: 159). Exactly why this particular aspect of AmE should so influence BrE – and other varieties of English around the world – is not clear, though Mair suggests that it can be put down to ‘the increasing prestige of formal American usage outside the United States’ (2006: 203).

There is one possible contributory factor that appears not to have been explored to any great extent in the literature. More than once, as discussed above in Section 4.1.1, Ernest Weekley specifically commented on the increasing use of the mandative subjunctive in British newspapers,¹⁹ and, as the examples from The Sun in Section 4.2.6 reveal, an examination of any of today’s British national newspapers will reveal plenty of examples. In newspapers, there are always restrictions on space, and it seems possible that one of the attractions of the mandative subjunctive from the point of view of a journalist could be its conciseness and economy in comparison with the should construction.

One of the possible determinants of linguistic change mentioned by Mair in his study of twentieth-century English is ‘colloquialisation’ (2006: 187), according to which the norms of written English have tended to grow closer to those of the spoken variety. In grammar, Mair suggests, the trend in

17 To be fair, Turner merely mentions it as a theory that has been proposed; he does not actively support it.

18 As, perhaps, reflected in the comment about AmE by Mencken that ‘In the main, should is avoided, sometimes at considerable pains’ (1936: 445).

19 For example, ‘English as she is spoke’ (Observer, 24 May 1936, p. 10) and ‘Words: American and English’

(Observer, 9 October 1938, p. 9).

the verb phrase is for changes to follow this pattern, with a few exceptions, one of which he concedes is

‘the recent spread of the subjunctive, a formal variant, in British writing’ (2006: 192). He also identifies an apparently contradictory trend in the form of an increase in structures that help the compression of information – or a ‘tendency to increase information density in most written genres’ – and states that this

‘shapes the grammar of the noun phrase’ (2006: 203). Leech et al. use the term ‘densification’ for the same process (2009: 249–252). This topic was considered by Biber (2003) in a study of noun phrases in British and American newspapers. While accepting that in some respects newspaper prose has followed the trend of colloquialisation, via such changes as ‘a greater use of first and second person pronouns, contractions, sentence-initial conjunctions, phrasal verbs, and progressive aspect’ (2003: 170), Biber claims that it has also ‘retained some of its nineteenth-century characteristics associated with dense, informational prose’ (2003: 170). Assuming that one of the major factors in newspapers is the need for economy – the ‘pressure to communicate information as efficiently and economically as possible’ (2003:

170) – Biber suggests that in addition to achieving this by simple editorial cutting, writers have adopted various ‘devices’ in the noun phrase, such as ‘noun–noun sequences, heavy appositive post-modifiers, and to-noun complement clauses . . . These features are all literate devices used to pack information into relatively few words’ (2003: 179).

It could be argued that the use of the mandative subjunctive in British newspapers is an example of another ‘device’ that results in increased information density – but one in the verb phrase rather than the noun phrase. It may involve a difference of only one word – the loss of should – but that can be important from an editorial point of view when space is at a premium. As with the devices in the noun phrase that Biber discusses, it is certainly more likely to be characterised as ‘literate’ than ‘colloquial’ (in BrE, at least). Indeed, there are indications that in BrE the subjunctive in such clauses, historically associated as it is with legal and administrative use, is in some way considered more ‘correct’. This is expressed directly in the comment cited in Section 4.1.2 (and repeated here) by a professional proofreader (albeit one in the book-publishing rather than newspaper industry): ‘[the mandative subjunctive] is by no means unknown – and some would account it more correct – in English’ (Carey 1953: 17; my italic). It is also indicated indirectly by Weekley’s description of its revival as ‘pedantic’,²⁰ if pedantry is understood as an excessive concern with correctness.

20 See ‘English as she is spoke’ (Observer, 24 May 1936, p. 10).