PROCESSUAL MODALITIES
OF THE ENGLISH VERB

© 1998, 1999, 2005 by Orchid Land Publications

C.-J. N. Bailey

     English has got eight processual verb modalities:

     The FIRST processual modality in English is SV-INVERSION, used to create plain questions and imperatives (evident only in the don'tchu-prohibitives discussed below and perhaps in jussives and hortatives like Let's go) as well as in the difference between "She may win" and "May she win!" (optative-may, discussed below).
     The SECOND processual modality, the TEMPORAL THROWBACK, makes a statement irrealis and can be stylistically employed to mitigate one's assertiveness, as in "Did you wish to leave on tomorrow's flight, Madam?" The shifting of time to an earlier time make statements involving present or past time counterfactual, as in these contrasting hypothesis clauses:

     If it was raining yesterday, . . .
     If it had been raining yesterday, . .

     If it's raining where your vacation cottage is located, . . .
     If it were raining where your vacation cottage is located , . . .

Notice that was is often reversed to were in the last, irrealis clause; this is not optional when if is omitted in such clauses (see below). In the surrealisenvironment (a posterior environment--illustrated here in hypothesis clauses), the irrealis effect is dubitative rather than one of counterfactuality:

They'd worry if it didn't arrive by tomorrow.
They'd worry if it hadn't arrived by tomorrow.

     Historically, the following was a throw-back of shall to should (just as the foregoing exhibit a throwback/reversal of will to would):

They'd worry if it shouldn't arrive by tomorrow.

Even more doubtful or counterexpectative are:

They'd worry if it weren't to (have) arrive(d) by tomorrow.

     The THIRD processual modality, if-DELETION, (a) is restricted in English to certain auxiliary verbs, (b) disallows contracting such modals as may environ this process, (c) requires SV-INVERSION, and (see above) (d) requires was to be respelled as were:

Were they (to be) on time, . . .
Should they be late, . . .
Had we but realized, . . .

Not in question here is if-DELETION (or NON-INSERTION) in generic, non-irrealis conditionals like "You don't study, you fail."
     The FOURTH processual modality, you-DELETION is rarely found except with imperatives (other than don'tchu prohibitives; see the next processual modality). The use of this modality with infinitives is subject to the constraints discussed by government-and-binding grammarians and others; greatly simplified, an infinitive subject gets deleted when it is the identical with the subject of the higher predicate.
     The FIFTH processual modality, do-INSERTION in don'tchu prohibitives (and sometimes in positive imperatives) has marked connotations appropriate to the context:

Don'tchu dare do that! (minatory)
Don'tchu worry about that, Honey! (soothing, as to a child)

Note that non-modal uses of dare and need take do-SUPPORT like non-modal auxiliary-less verbs; this creates a contrast between modal "You needn't do that yet" (advice) and "You don't need to do that yet" (realis). While do-INSERTION is mandatory with NEG-FRONTING (e.g. "Never did they realize what had happened") as well as with ordinary auxiliary-less verbs that are negated with not or interrogated, it conveys emphasis in plain statements like "They did arrive late!" The consuetudinary-be of vernacular African American English takes do-SUPPORT; "Do he always be sick when you get there?"
     The SIXTH processual modality, may-DELETION, together with SV-INVERSION, makes for optative force, as in "Long live the Queen!" and "Be that as it may" and "Come what may." (Only be and, much less often, come, are semi-productive with this modality today; other expressions are found as archaic expressions frozen in the current language.)  May-DELETION without SV-INVERSION occurs when an object or prepositional phrase within the VP follows, as in "God help us!" While we say "Be it so" or "So be it" and "Be it ever so humble," we don't invert the order in "Be it on time." Contrast "God help us" with un-English "Live the Queen for a long time."
     The SEVENTH processual modality, should-DELETION, is optionally (but now again increasingly) used after expressions of volition and necessity and those of propriety and importance; e.g. "It was for the good of the country that he [should] be deprived of that honor." (Note the "solemn" use of this modality by preachers and jurists in expressions like "If it be so." I discuss elsewhere examples like "I just be myself on those occasions"; they can be analysed as following a deleted matrix clause: "[It is fitting/important that] I just be myself on those occasions.")  A fifth, more restricted use of  should-DELETION is found in negated predicates in purpose clauses--in an adverbial purpose clause, "wanted to take measures so that it not fail"; in an adjectival purpose clause, "We took preventive measures with the intention that it not succeed by default"; and in a nominal (noun) object purpose clause, "They made sure that it not fail."    From an explanatory perspective, note that the loss of should (which can always remain undeleted in these expressions) explains why be in "It was for the good of the country that he be deprived of that honor" and "She demanded that he not give her ring away" do not (as they appear to do) really violate the sequencing of time forms and do not erroneously lack the otherwise expected inflection (viz. is or gives) or the do-SUPPORT that would generally be required with a verb modified by not.    The idea of a "subjunctive mood" is ignorant to the degree that it fails to realize that the obsolete subjunctive followed the sequencing principle (subordinate past predicates--most former subjunctives occurred in subordinate clauses--after pasts in the clause) and that not takes do-SUPPORT--neither of which affects the result of should-DELETION --any more than either goes with should itself!!   (Incidentally, I dare say is an obsolete subjunctive, since date can be a modal with to-supported infinitive only under negation, interrogation, or comparison in today's English.)
     The EIGHTH processual modality, CONTRAPONENCE, i.e. the creation of a passive or reflexive sense for a causative verb that is not passive in form. (With the marked category of infinitives, one can say "hard to do" OR "hard to be done.") Older causatives (as in "the door opened" and "the trash pile was smoking") can be so used without modifiers. But newly created contraponents require (a) a generic aspectuality and (b) an adverb or adverbial phrase, most often a manner adverbial; e.g. "This car drives smoothly" and "That document reads easily" The meaning is probably most often "can be V-en," as in "This pottery breaks easily" = "This pottery can be easily broken." While generics are usually expressed in the exochronous modality (illustrated with opens, drives, and smokes), marked uses like "He's always putting on airs" sometimes occur.
     The NINTH processual modality is to-DELETION, for creating the short infinitive, optional with help (e.g. "help them (to) do it"), and where no complications result, with ought.    The reader is referred to theoretical texts on syntax for constructs in which this process occurs.  To is not deleted after modal verbs, including the modal uses of need (contrast needn't go with doesn't need to go) and dare; these modal uses occur only in negative and interrogative contexts.  Further, to is usually not deleted after adjectives like ready, vital, etc.   Note that a (very) few minor differences distinguish British and North American types (i.e. a few predicates delete to in one type that do not do so in the other).
     The English processual modalities are irrealis except perhaps CONTRAPONENCE and the use of SUBJECT-DELETION (but you-DELETION is of course irrealis).

     The auxiliary verbs of English include:

They also include the modal verbs: