4. The problem of reflexive, reciprocal, middle voice

The Reflexive Voice is not recognized unanimously by all grammarians on the ground that the functioning of reflexive pronouns is not quite clear in all the cases:

e.g. a) in some cases it functions in the very way other pronouns in the position of the indirect object do. e.g. I poured myself a cup of tea.

I poured him a cup of tea.

b) in other cases the direction of the action is different:

He had been taught to efface himself

I must try and efface the unfavourable impression I made.

c) in other cases the direction of the action is the same but the character is different

e.g. I hurt myself (“at the source”)

I saw myself in the mirror (“beyond the source” via an additional meaning)

d) in the combinations

to busy oneself, to pride oneself.

Directing the action at its /performer/ doer

It’s usually only in case of the relations like in (a) that is when the semantic subject and object coincide that the reflexive pronoun can be omitted

e.g. I dressed (myself)

I washed (myself)

Though a wider context than a 2-member relation is needed to have a full specification of the action.

The combinations V+self-pronoun presents one of the most controversial points as far as voice is concerned. The same is true about the combination V + reciprocal pronoun. These combinations express particular voice notion or semantic voice of Reciprocity. But their linguistic status remains dubious. On the one hand, the pronominal elements in these combinations resemble auxiliaries of analytic formations due to their significative function. Due to these very characteristics linguists consider the combinations V+recepr (reflexivity pronoun as analytical voice-forms and accordingly the number of voices is extended to include: Active, Passive, Reflexivity, Reciprocity, Mediality. On the other hand, the self and reciprocal elements in combination with the verb, retain their pronominal nature to a great extent. They have their lexical meaning which is significative in character, that is why the combinations of verbs with such pronominal elements must be qualified as lexico-syntactic devices explicating voice notions.

e.g. He spoke as if they had known each other for years.

He tried to persuade himself that he had not really been responsible.

Mediality as a voice notion is usually expressed in English by the transitive verbs in intransitive use and the subject with such predicated denoted as a rule “inert” objects.

e.g. The window opened on a crime scene.

The door slammed on a fight.

5. General Characteristic of the Category of Mood

The category of mood expresses the relations between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting the process as a fact that really happened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i.e. the subject of a hypothesis, speculation, desire.

Mood is the grammatical verbal category that expresses certain modality of the utterance, i.e. the attitude of the speaker to reality.

Traditional normative grammar distinguishes 3 moods in English:

indicative, imperative, subjunctive.

The problems connected with the category of mood centres around:

the exact definition of the category,

the number of moods

the correlation between mood and modality

the existence of a number of syntactical and analytical forms of the verb to express the meaning of unreality

The Indicative Mood expresses the action viewed by the speaker as a real fact which necessitates its reference to a certain temporal sphere, i.e. the action gets time orientation as no action can be viewed regardless time.

The Subjunctive Mood expresses the action as supposed, possible, desirable, necessary. And the action isn’t and can’t be referred to any temporal sphere.