FACT, HYPOTHESIS and

NEUTRALITY
We have considered the truth and falsehood of statements in
terms of affirmation, denial, negation, etc. but there are many
circumstances in which the issue of truth or falsehood is
ASSUMED rather than directly stated.

[1] I’m glad that John has agreed (FACT)

[2] I wish that John had agreed (HYPOTHESIS)

In [1], the speaker assumes the truth of the statement JOHN

HAS AGREED, while in [2], he assumes its falsehood. We
will call something assumed to be false HYPOTETICAL.
 HYPOTHETICAL MEANING
A FACT (or factual meaning) is usually expressed by a finite
verb clause, as in [1], or by an –ING clause:

I’m surprised that he made that mistake

I’m surprised at his making that mistake

A finite clause is a main clause or a subordinate clause that

must have a verb to show tense. The verb can be in the
present tense or past tense. The tense can be changed from
the present tense to the past tense or past tense to the present
tense. Because the verb in the present tense or past tense is
called a finite verb, the clause that contains a finite verb is
called a finite clause.
A HYPOTHESIS (or hypothetical meaning) is usually
expressed by the past tense in dependent clause, as in [2],
and by WOULD (or ‘d) + infinitive in main clauses. These
two constructions can be seen respectively in the conditional
sub-clause and in the main clause of hypothetical conditions:

If we HAD enough money, I WOULD BUY a radio

TODAY/TOMORROW.

Notice that the past tense (HAD, WOULD) here has nothing
to do with the past time: reference is to PRESENT or
FUTURE time.
WOULD in the verb of the main clause can be
replaced by another past tense modal auxiliary:

If we HAD enough money, I COULD (would be

able to) BUY a tape recorder today

PAST time when combined with hypothesis is

expressed by the perfective construction HAVE +
-ED participle:

If we HAD HAD enough money, I WOULD HAVE

BOUGHT a tape-recorder last year.
 Other constructions containing hypothetical clauses

Apart from conditional clauses, hypothetical meaning may

occur in a few other special constructions. The main ones are
illustrated here:

IT’S TIME you were in bed (but you’re not in bed)

He behaves AS IF he owned the place (but he doesn’t

own..)

It’s not AS THOUGH he WERE poor / WAS <informal>

poor (he’s not poor)

Just SUPPOSE someone had seen us (but they didn’t see us)
IF ONLY I hadn’t listened to my parents! (but I
did listen….)

IN THAT CASE, he would have taken a taxi

THEN, he would have taken a taxi

OTHERWISE, he would have taken a taxi

IN YOUR PLACE, I would have taken a taxi

 Other ways of expressing hypothetical meaning
In addition to the past time, there are three less common
ways of expressing hypothetical meaning in sub clauses:

(A) THE WERE-SUBJUNCTIVE:

I’d play football with you if I WERE younger.

(The ordinary past tense WAS can replace WERE in

<informal> style)

(B) WERE TO (or WAS TO <informal>) + INFINITIVE

If it WERE TO RAIN tomorrow, the match would be

postponed. (This construction expresses hypothetical future)
(C) SHOULD + INFINITIVE:

If a serious crisis SHOULD ARISE, the government

would take immediate action.

Constructions (B) and (C) are also slightly <formal

or literary>, and suggest <tentative> conditions. The
last two constructions are in general limited to
conditional clauses (and constructions related to
conditions, like SUPPOSE HE WERE TO SEE US)
Another type of hypothetical conditional clause has no
subordinating conjunction IF, but instead begins with an
operator placed before the subject (inversion). The three
operators which occur in this construction are HAD,
subjunctive WERE, and putative SHOULD:

HAD I KNOWN, I would have written before (If I had

known…..)

WERE A SERIOUS CRISIS TO ARISE, the government

would have to act swiftly (If a serious crisis were to arise.....)

SHOULD YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND, no one would

blame you (If you should change your mind......)
 Neutrality
In addition to fact and hypothesis, there is a third type of
situation, in which the speaker assumes neither the truth nor
the falsehood of a statement. We will call this situation
NEUTRALITY.

a. It’s best FOR SARAH TO BE PATIENT

b. I want JOHN TO AGREE

It these sentences, we do not know (a) whether Sarah will be

patient or not; (b) whether John will agree or not. In this
sense, the assumptions are NEUTRAL.
Infinitive clauses often express neutrality; also WH-clauses,
which in this respect sometimes contrast with THAT-clauses:
Did you know THAT John has agreed? (John has agreed)

Do you know WHETHER John has agreed? (Please tell me)

He told me THAT they had passed the exam.
He told me WHETHER he had passed the exam.

DOUBT is another verb that can be followed by either a

THAT-clause or a WH-clause. NOT + DOUBT expresses
certainty, and so takes a THAT-clause:

I doubt WHETHER James will co-operate with us

I don’t doubt THAT James will co-operate with us

 Putative SHOULD
We have already said that SHOULD expresses a tentative
condition in IF-clauses. That is true not only for hypothetical
conditions, but for OPEN conditions:

*If you should hear the news, Jane, please let me know.

In other dependent clauses, SHOULD is used neutrality, to

represent something as a neural ‘idea’ rather than as a ‘fact’.
We call this use of SHOULD PUTATIVE.
FACT:

The fact is that the railways will be improved.

We know that the railways will be improved.

IDEA:

The idea is that the railways SHOULD be improved.

Someone is suggesting that the railways SHOULD be

improved.
1. I know that you visited her

2. I want you to visit her

3. I wish you had visited her

4. I suggest you to visit her

5. I’m happy that you visited her

6. If you have time, you will visit her

7. If you had time, you would visit her

8. If you had had time, you would have visited her

ASSIGNMENT:
Construct 5 sentences (for each) that show:
1. Fact
2. Hypothesis
3. Neutrality

note: all sentences should be stated orally and

recorded in video format and uploaded to GC