14

a critical account of english syntax

written in unsatisfactory language would be returned for revision. This

is a good example of linguistic power being exercised, and of the would-
­be arbiter exposing gaps in their own knowledge. The first version of the
Committee’s regulations contained the following pieces of text.
1 The period data is to be kept will be commensurate to the scale of its
research.
In the conventions for written English followed by JM and KB commen-
surate requires with.
2 It is expected that access to the Consent Forms be restricted to the
researcher and/or the Principal Investigator.
The underlined part of (2) seemed peculiar, though another example
aroused no misgivings (i.e., it matched KB and JM’s intuitions): It is
required that Consent Forms be stored separately from data and kept for six years.
The peculiarity seemed to arise from the combination of It is expected
and be restricted. Wondering whether their reaction was misguided, KB
and JM checked a major reference grammar.† It listed the volitional
verbs command, demand, insist, order, propose, recommend, suggest, and the
volitional adjectives adamant, keen and insistent. (Note that required in
the above example is a volitional verb.) The volitional verbs were said
to require the subjunctive (be, not is). The comment on the volitional
adjectives was that, expressing some command indirectly, they usually
take the subjunctive in American English but should in British English.
The grammar provided the examples in (3).
3 a I demand that he leave the meeting.
b The editor insisted that this comment be taken out.
c We proposed that the new Department deal only with postgraduate
students.
The distinction between indirect commands and statements was high-
lighted by the examples in (4).
4 a The doctor was adamant that the person leave the surgery.
b The doctor was adamant that she prescribed the correct medication.
A quick check on Google of 180 instances of the sequence is expected
produced two examples with the subjunctive and 178 with was or
should. That is, the syntax of (2) both failed to match KB and JM’s usage
and the data turned up by Google.
What is the explanation for (2)? It could be a case of hypercorrection,
the writer of the document being aware of the construction Verb +
that + Clause with subjunctive verb form. Semantics and pragmatics

M3947 - BROWN & MILLER 9780748696086 PRINT.indd 14 20/09/2016 08:45