Ask, demand, direct, insist, order, propose, recommend, request, require and suggest: A corpusbased

1
Ask, demand, direct, insist, order, propose,
recommend, request, require and suggestA
corpus-based study of mandative subjunctive
triggers in published research articles

• Pamela Pearson
• ISU Department of English/GSU Department of
  Applied Linguistics
• March 14, 2008
• AACL 2008 Brigham Young University

2
Welcome,
and please fasten your seat belts
3
Overview of Presentation

• Introduction
• Purpose, research questions
• Literature Review
• Definitions, theoretical framework, relevant
  studies
• Methodology
• Corpus, concordancer, analyses
• Results
• (Questions)
• Discussion Conclusions
• Interpretations, implications, applications
• Limitations, suggestions for further research

4
Introduction

• For more than a century, linguists have reported
  that the subjunctive is disappearing from the
  English language (Ramsey, 1892 Krapp, 1908
  Fowler, 1926 Vallins, 1956 Strang, 1962)
• However, few studies have been based on empirical
  evidence
• This study explores the mandative subjunctive MS
  triggers (MSTs), in particular in academic
  writing

5
Purpose

• To add to what is already known (reported in AL
  literature) about MSTs and the MS
• To approach the topic in an innovative way
• To not simply identify triggers of the MS
  structure, but to explore the triggers themselves
• To understand their functions
• To identify the factors that contribute to the
  triggering/non-triggering of the structure

6
Research Questions

• What are the frequency distributions of ask,
  demand, direct, insist, order, propose,
  recommend, request, require and suggest (the
  MSTs) in the ISURAC?
• Are the MSTs manifested strictly as lexical verbs
  in the corpus? If not, which other word classes
  do they represent?
• When these items function as lexical verbs, do
  they always co-occur with that-clauses and
  subjunctive verb forms in actual use in academic
  writing in other words, do the MSTs trigger
  the mandative subjunctive? If not, with what
  other structures do they co-occur?
• Is there a correlation between the form of the
  trigger in the main clause and the grammatical
  structure of the that-complement clause?
• What is the function of structures identified as
  mandative subjunctives? What is the function of
  structures identified as non-mandative
  subjunctives? Are there any significant
  differences in use of the mandative subjunctive
  structure across disciplines?

7
Literature Review

• Defining the subjunctive
• Curme (1947) Idea, mood
• Poutsma (1922) Mood
• Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech Svartvik (1990)
  Mood, two forms (not a tense)
• Biber, Conrad Leech (2002) Form

8

• Defining the mandative subjunctive
• Triggered by a class of verbs know as mandatives
  (Quirk Greenbaum, 1973, 1990 Peters, 2004),
  suasives (Nichols, 1987 Crawford Albakry,
  2004) or indirect-discourse imperatives
  (Jacobsson, 1975)
• e.g., demand, insist, recommend, require, suggest

9

• A synthesis of definitions from English grammars
• A University Grammar of English, Quirk
  Greenbaum (1973)
• The Grammar Book An ESL/EFL Teachers Course,
  Celce-Murcia Larsen-Freeman (1983)
• The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written
  English, Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad
  Finegan (1999)
• The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Peters
  (2004)

10

• A main verb trigger
• A that-clause
• A subjunctive verb form
• I told her she could stay with me until she
• found a place, but she insisted that she pay
• her own way (FICT) (Biber et al., 1999) p. 180).

11

• Theoretical framework
• Corpus linguistics
• Corpus-based approach to grammar
• Lexicogrammar (Biber, Conrad Reppen, 1998
  Biber Conrad, 2001) Analyzing associations
  between lexical items and grammatical features

12

• Previous corpus-based investigations of the MS
• Johansson Norheim, 1988
• MS vs. should, BrE vs. AmE
• Overgaard, 1995
• MS vs. periphrastic MS, BrE vs. AmE, diachronic
  (C20)
• Peters, 1998
• MS vs. modal paraphrases, ACE
• Crawford Albakry, 2004
• MS in US newswriting

13
Methodology

• Lexical items for investigation
• Corpus ISURAC (Cortes, 2006)
• Sub-corpus of four disciplines
• Concordancer MonoConc Pro 2.2
• Analyses
• Primary Frequency
• Secondary Form
• Tertiary Pattern
• Quaternary Structure
• Quinary Function

14
Results

• Preliminary Analysis Frequency
• pp. 22-23
• Secondary Analysis Form
• pp. 24-27

15

• Tertiary Analysis Pattern
• pp. 28-29

16

• Distributions of grammatical patterns, p. 29
• Samples of MS structures, p. 30

17

• Quaternary Analysis Structure
• p. 35
• Quinary Analysis Function
• pp. 36-40

18
Discussion

• Limitations
• Corpus size (rare structure)
• Hand analysis (? second researcher)
• Author idiosyncrasy?
• Interpretations, implications, applications
• Relative frequency to other studies/registers
• Complex factors for triggering are multiple
• Professional communication
• Editing
• MS Word
• EAP L1 L2 Writing

19

• Suggestions for further research
• Exploring other registers
• Examining alternate structures
• Surveying attitudes, perceptions, intentions
• Quantifying the distance factor
• Performing a diachronic analysis
• Comparing British American use
• Exploring temporal reference

20
Conclusions

• Lexical item (ask, demand, direct, insist, order,
  propose, recommend, request, require and suggest)
  as main verb in the MS structure (main verb
  that-clause) does not consistently trigger the
  subjunctive form
• Factors for triggering go beyond linguistic and
  into the situational, social, psychological and
  pragmatic
• No such thing as an MST?

21
Questions?

• Contact Info
• Pam Pearson
• Georgia State University
• pampear_at_gsu.edu