George P. Myers and Dr. Jeffrey S. Turley, Spanish & Portuguese

In A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, David Crystal semantically defines the mood of a verb as the “attitudes on the part of a speaker towards the factual content of the utterance, e.g. uncertainty, definiteness, vagueness, possibility.”1 While Crystal’s definition may give the mood of a verb an orderly appearance, more than one grammarian has appropriately compared understanding the factors leading up to mood selection to untangling a large ball of knotted string. With considerable credibility, most grammarians claim to have organized much of the tangle; however, few can explain how to separate the subjunctive mood from the indicative mood without any catches or snags. For instance, mood selection following the factive nominal, el hecho de que (the fact that), still remains as a knot to be untied.

Variability in the mood selection of a verb following el hecho de que (as well as three other similar constructions eso de que, el que, and que) has prompted a few articles and one study. While grammarians often agree on the difference between the subjunctive and indicative moods in prototypical situations, el hecho de que often appears to contradict traditional or intuitive understanding of the two moods, suggesting that different factors affect mood selection after this grammatical construction. Because of el hecho de que’s “factual” appearance, this complementizer would intuitively require a speaker to select the indicative mood for that clause; however, this complementizer heads clauses containing an embedded verb that a speaker can mark with either the subjunctive or indicative.

In an article discussing some possible factors allowing for this variability, Richard Woehr concludes that “the content of the predicate generally negates the validity of the initial proposition or else the speaker expresses a subjective, emotional or evaluative reaction; these propositions, therefore, are hypothetical assumptions.”2 A few years later, John M. Lipski states that some clauses headed by el hecho de que and marked with the subjunctive are not hypothetical, but factual. Me importa un comino el hecho de que el jefe le diera el asceno a Menéndez. (I could care less about the fact that the boss promoted Menéndez.) Indeed the Menéndez’s promotion is factual, not hypothetical. Lipski suggests that a speaker can use the subjunctive in factive clauses as a “basis for a meta-level of commentary, showing the relation between the facts in question and some other individual, entity, or event.”3 In the other words according to Lipski, a speaker can mark a factive clause with the subjunctive when the speaker is not “talking about ‘facts’ as such but rather offering some commentary about these facts.”4

Although Lipski appears to clarify Woehr’s “hypothetical” factor, a closer reading of Woehr’s article reveals that Woehr defines “hypothetical” as “either noncommittal as to [the proposition’s] validity or else is tinged with a degree of emotivity to which the speaker expresses a subjective, emotional, or evaluative reaction” or commentary.5 In essence, Woehr and Lipski seem to agree on the factors leading the mood selection following el hecho de que: the indicative mood presents the fact in question without commentary, while the subjunctive expresses any reaction in the speaker toward the factive clause.

Not satisfied with the previous investigative procedures, Margarita Krakusin and Artistófanes Cedeño felt a study of el hecho de que in context would help in understanding the mood selection. In a five page note published in Hispania, Krakusin and Cedeño explain the results of their search through the articles of Mariano Grondona, a Mexican columnist, and present a few contextual clues as deciding factors for mood selection after factive nominal phrases. These researchers found that Grondona utilized mood to organize information within his compact writing style. Generalizing their findings, Krakusin and Cedeño suggested that a speaker selects the indicative to mark “highly relevant” factive clauses, which generally follow the principal verb.6 In his columns, Grondona used the indicative to present new information to the reader or “facts” that he did not want the reader to question. On the other hand, Grondona selected the subjunctive to mark clauses with “low informative” value that, according to the author’s judgement, does not merit much of the reader’s attention.7

While Krakusin and Cedeflo did not present or find any conflicting examples in Grondona’s writing (perhaps because they took their data from a single person), the assertion that clauses headed by el hecho de que marked with the indicative only offer new information to the reader does not always hold true. In his article, Lipski provides the following example. A speaker, who has repeatedly heard of a friend’s personal troubles and now questions the situation’s nature, could try to console this friend by asking “¿Cómo explicas el hecho de que nadie te quiere?” Although the example presented by Lipski may require a highly specific context, it does render Krakusin and Cedeñio’s assertion somewhat less than totally general.

After conducting the research for this project, I have decided that the variability in mood selection following clauses headed by el hecho de que (and the other variants) is due to the fact that a speaker can either present or comment on any given “fact.” If a speaker chooses to simply present the factive clause, the speaker marks the verb following el hecho de que with the indicative; however, if the speaker wishes to justify the factive clause with any judgement or comment, the speaker selects the subjunctive.

References

1.  T.D. Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, London: Basil Blackwell (1991)223.
2.  R. Woehr, “Grammar of the Factive Nominal in Spanish.” Language Science, (1972)36:17- 18.
3.  J. Lipski, “Subjunctive as Fact?” Hispania, (1978)61:933.
4. J. Lipski, “Subjunctive as Fact?” Hispania, (1978)61:934.
5.  R. Woehr, “Grammar of the Factive Nominal in Spanish.” Language Science, (1972) 36:15.
6.  M. Krakusin and A. Cedeñio, “Selección del modo después de el hecho de que.” Hispania, (1992)75:1290.
7.  M. Krakusin and A. Cedeñio, “Selección del modo después de el hecho de que.” Hispania, (1992)75:1292.
8. J. Lipski, “Subjunctive as Fact?” Hispania, (1978)61:933.