There is no subjunctive in English

The western classical tradition identifies three moods: indicative, subjunctive, imperative. Protagoras split the indicative into interrogative and declarative. Palmer 2001, 2003 argues for only two: indicative and subjunctive. Given any of these classifications of mood, English has no category of mood and so has no subjunctive. Instead it has certain clause-types which express hypotheticality and which can be subsumed to the irrealis branch of the apparently universal category realis~irrealis; to which subjunctives, optatives, jussives and the like can also be subsumed.

Abstand, Ausbau, creativity and ludicity in Australian English

The social history of a language or variety, and its emergence, consolidation and stabiliza tion, allow us to combine the formal data of the language (principally its sound structure, grammar and lexis) with the external conditions in which they have evolved. The advance of Australian English in terms of its differentiation (Kloss's abstand) and elaboration of roles (Kloss's ausbau) pose problems of chronology, periodization, description and expla nation. This paper extends the conventional scope of abstand and ausbau to the analysis of the social history of Australian English. It argues that two factors are central to the emerging identification of Australian English: creativity, in the sense of morphological innovation, especially here in diminutives like reffo ('refugee') and pollie ('politician'); and in ludicity, defined as a deep-rooted playfulness with language. While these character istics are only part of the overall dynamics of the social history of Australian English, the evidence is sufficiently extensive to warrant further investigation. An earlier version of this paper was given at the Mitchell Symposium at Macquarie University on 26 April 2002 under the title ‘E pluribus plures? Diversity and integrity in Australian English’. I am grateful to members of the Symposium, and to two anonymous reviewers, for valuable comments and criticism

Can and may: Monosemy or polysemy?

This paper argues, on the basis of a corpus-based study of the meanings of can and may in contemporary British, American and Australian English, that a polysemy-based analysis is applicable to both modals. With may, epistemic possibility is the dominant meaning, but the dynamic and deontic possibility meanings still account for over 16.5% of tokens. By contrast the meanings of can, apart from a small percentage (1.1%) of epistemic cases, are united through the concept of potentiality. Nevertheless there are signs that the epistemic possibility meaning is becoming established, as it sheds its syntactic/semantic restriction to non-affirmative contexts.