CLAUSE AS EXCHANGE
Text 4-3 Mood and tone combinations
4.6 Absence of elements of the modal structure
notions of giving and demanding that were discussed as the very beginning of this chapter.
For any clause, there is one choice of Subject that is ‘unmarked’ — that is assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In a giving clause (offer or statement), the unmarked Subject is ‘I’; while in a demanding clause (question or command), the unmarked Subject is ‘you’. This means that, if a clause that on other grounds can be interpreted as offer or statement is without a Subject, the listener will understand the Subject ‘I’ — that is, Subject equals speaker, for example:
(a) Carry your bag? (‘Shall I . . .?’)
— Would you? Thanks.
(b) Met Fred on the way here. (‘I . . .’)
— Did you? Where?
Whereas if it is a question or command the listener will understand the Subject ‘you’ — that is, Subject equals listener, for example:
(c) Seen Fred? (‘have you . . .?’)
— No, I haven’t.
(d) Play us a tune. (‘Will you . . .?’)
— Shall I? Alright.
Notice that (d) is an ordinary imperative clause. In most accounts of English grammar the imperative is presented as if it was a special case, without any explanation. But it is not; it is simply an instance of this general principle by which a Subject is ‘understood’. Being a demanding clause, its unmarked Subject is ‘you’.
As these examples show, typically it is the whole of the Mood element that is left implicit in such instances: (shall I) carry your bag?, (will you) play us a tune!. In an information clause, however, the Finite element may be present either because it is needed to express tense or modality, as in might see you this evening (‘I . . .’), or because it is fused with the Predicator as in (b) above. In such instances only the Subject is ‘ellipsed’.
The principle that the Subject to be supplied in a case of ellipsis is always the modally unmarked one, I or you according to mood, can also be overridden by the context; for example in
(d) Seen Fred? (‘Have you . . .?’)
— No; must be away. (‘He . . .’)
the Subject in the response is understood as ‘he (Fred)’ by presupposition from the preceding question (‘anaphoric ellipsis’; see Chapter 9, Section 9.5, p. 561).
We remarked in Section 4.2, p. 111 on the relation between the semantic categories of statement, question, offer and command on the one hand and the grammatical categories of the mood system on the other. The relationship is a rather complex one. For statements and questions there is a clear pattern of congruence: typically, a statement is realized as declarative and a question as interrogative — but at the same time in both instances there
are alternative realizations. For offers and commands the picture is even less determinate. A command is usually cited, in grammatical examples, as imperative, but it is just as likely to be a modulated interrogative or declarative, as inWill you be quiet?,You must keep quiet!;
while for offers there is no distinct mood category at all, just a special interrogative form shall I . . .?,shall we . . .?, which again is simply one possible realization among many. This would seem to complicate the question just raised, namely which Subject is to be understood if none is present. But in general this follows the grammar; for example, in Have an orange!(imperative ‘will you’),Like an orange?(interrogative ‘would you?’), the listener will supply ‘you’ as Subject and at the same time interpret the clause as an offer. There is rarely any misunderstanding, since the listener operates on the basic principle of all linguistic interaction — the principle that what the speaker says makes sense in the context in which he is saying it.
4.6.2 Minor clauses
The other circumstance in which a clause does not display a Mood + Residue structure is if it is realizing a minor speech function. Minor speech functions are exclamations, calls, greetings and alarms.
These speech functions may be realized by a major clause; for example, exclamations by a particular kind of declarative (the exclamative, discussed in Section 4.4.2, p. 137), greetings by an interrogative or imperative. But there are other forms used in these speech functions which are not constructed as propositions or proposals. Many of these do not need to be assigned any internal structure of their own.
Exclamations are the limiting case of an exchange; they are verbal gestures of the speaker addressed to no one in particular. Some of them are in fact not language but protolanguage, such as Wow!, Yuck!, Aha! and Ouch!. Others are made of language, with recognizable words and sometimes even traces of structure; for example Terrific!,You sod!,God’s boots!, Bugger you!, Bullshit!. They can be analysed as nominal groups (Chapter 6, Section 6.2, p. 311) or as clauses in terms of transitivity (Chapter 5), if desired.
Calls are the speaker calling to attention another person, or other entity treated as capable of being addressed: deity, spirit, animal or inanimate object. These do relate to the clause as exchange; the structural function is that of Vocative, as in Charlie!, You there!, Madam President, Oh Lord our Heavenly Father. Under this heading we could also include the response to a call, where relevant; typically the word yes on a rising tone (Section 4.5, p. 143).
Greetings include salutations, for example Hullo!, Good morning!, Welcome!, Hi!, and valedictions, such as Goodbye!,See you!; together with their responses, largely the same set of forms. Under this heading we could include well-wishings, like Your very good health!, Cheers!, Good shot!, Congratulations!. Both calls and greetings include some which are structured as clauses or nominal groups.
Alarms bear some resemblance to exclamatives, if only in voice quality; but they are addressed to another party, and they are in general derivable from the grammar of the clause
— they are intermediate between major and minor clauses. Alarms include (a) warnings, such as Look out!,Quick!,Careful!,Keep off!; (b) appeals, like Help!,Fire!,Mercy!,A drink!.
Many of these are clearly imperative and can be analysed as such: Residue only, consisting
A b s e n c e o f e l e m e n t s o f t h e m o d a l s t r u c t u r e
of Predicator (help), Predicator plus Adjunct (keep off), optional Predicator plus Complement ([be]careful) and so on. Other are nominal groups; these could in principle be functioning either as Subject or as Complement, but it is usually impossible to decide between these two: would Fire!, for example, be ‘filled out’ as there’s a fire, or as fire’s broken out, or even the house is on fire? This is one place where it is useful to recognize a distinct structural function; a nominal group which could be either Subject or Complement in an agnate major clause is said to have the function Absolute. This is not assigned either to Mood or to Residue. The concept of ‘Absolute’ function is also relevant to headlines, labels, lists and suchlike; see Appendix 1, on the grammar of little texts.
We have seen that Vocatives can function on their own as minor clauses. At the same time, they can also function as an element of a major clause. When the Vocative functions within a major clause, it is fairly ‘loosely’ integrated: it falls outside the Mood + Residue structure.
There is one other element that occurs in major clauses but which can also function on its own in dialogue. This is a textual element — the Continuative (see Chapter 3, Section 3.4, p. 79), which is used to indicate how the clause relates to the preceding move in a dialogue:
well,oh,yes,noand so on. Such items can also function on their own in dialogue, indicating that the listener is tracking the current speaker’s contribution. This has been called
‘backchannelling’; we can extend the category of minor clauses to include instances of this.
For example:
Professor Hart: ||| Yes, || it’s not as though you have already tried for two or three months to see how this works out. |||
Mrs Finney: ||| Working. ||| No, no; || what I did do a certain amount — || I’ve done — || I did a certain amount of reading during the last few months || and I have been and I went away || to did it || to do it. ||| I went a way from home {{Professor Hart: Yes.}} || so that I wouldn’t be there {{Professor Hart: Yes.}} || and it worked very well. ||| (Text 135)
Such minor clauses include yes,mmh,aha,sure. They do not constitute a turn in their own right; rather they serve to ensure the continuity of the interaction by supporting the current speaker’s turn, as when Professor Hart says yesto indicate that he is following what Mrs Finney is saying. In face-to-face conversation, they may of course be accompanied — or even replaced — by other, ‘paralinguistic’, indicators such as nodding.