The Category of Mood

The category of mood falls under a wide notion of modality, which is an indispensable attribute of each sentence. It expresses the attitude of a speaker towards a happening, whether he finds it a fact or a non-fact, that is imaginary, hypothetical or desirable. Modality is expressed phonetically ( by stress and intonation), lexically (by modal words), lexico-grammatically ( by modal verbs), grammatically ( by corresponding forms of verbs, the oppositions of which constitute the category of mood), syntactically ( by certain sub- clauses). The category of mood in present day English has given rise to many discussions. Interpretations of this category vary from scholar to scholar, reflecting their grammatical, logical, semantical or psychological orientations. The category is confusing because of the contrast between its semantic intricacy and scantiness of its inflections.

Debated problems within this category are: the character of the category, the starting point of analysis, the number of moods, the existence of the Imperative Mood, the existence of the Subjunctive Mood, the nature of the forms should/ would + infinitive.

Mood is understood as a morphologico- semantical phenomenon (O. Jespersen). According to prof. R. Long, mood is a semantico- syntactical phenomenon as it expresses distinctions between the actual and the hypothetical and partly distinctions between clause patterns. He distinguishes the indicative, the subjunctive, the infinitive, the gerundial and the participial moods. Mood is understood even as a psychological phenomenon (e.g. “Mood expresses images of the twilight world of imagination”). A.I. Smirnitsky, B.A.Ilyish and M.Y.Bloch understand mood as a purely morphological category.

It is questionable whether it is forms which are to be systematized according to their meanings, or modal meanings which are to be classified according to their forms. But all attempts to systematize meanings and forms fail. There’s no scheme that would be universally acceptable. There are so many semantic implications and psychological connotations that the category of mood has always been the stumbling block for notionalists and formalists alike.

It is difficult to analyse the category of mood as there is no correspondence between meaning and form. One and the same meaning can be expressed variously. The meaning of supposition, for example, is expressed in several ways (I suggest our going there. I suggest that we should go there. I suggest that we go there). The concessive meaning can also be expressed by different means [(Whatever it be ( can be, could be, may be, might be, should be, is )]. One and the same external sign can express different meanings. Were can be found in I wish he were here.If he were to come, I should be pleased. He wondered whether she were in Spain. Suppose he were here? It is as if he were ill. Had done can be seen in two semantically different structures: I wish you had done it. I said he had done it.

Proceeding from meaning scholars distinguish 16 Moods( The Hypothetical Mood, the Optative Mood, the Permissive Mood, the Suppositional Mood, the Indicative Mood, The Imperative Mood, the Voluntative Mood, the Potential Mood, the Compulsory Mood, the Conditional Mood, The Irrealis, etc.).

Proceeding from form, A.I. Smirnitsky distinguished 6 Moods:

Direct - Iindirect (Oblique Moods)

/\ /\

indicative imperative synthetical analytical

/\ /\

Subjunctive I Subjunctive II The Conditional The Suppositional

Some scholars distinguish 3 Moods:The Indicative, The Imperative and The Subjunctive. Let us consider each of these moods separately.