Introduction

The subjunctive is one of the most striking and most frequently commented-on domains of grammatical contrasts between the two major national varieties of English. Many surveys and specific studies have remarked on the greater propensity of AmE to use the subjunctive in contexts where BrE resorts to two other options, the indicative or modal constructions (see Johansson 1979: 201, 1980: 90–1, Erdmann 1981: 120–3, Quirk et al. 1985: 157, Johansson and Norheim 1988, Algeo 1992: 600, 2006: 263–4, Denison 1998: 264, Peters 2004: 520). However, those that widen the perspective to include the history of the phenomenon have come to contradictory conclusions. On the one hand, Turner (1980: 272–3), Görlach (1987: 53) and Lass (1987: 282) seem to assume a continuity between older forms of English and the frequent use of the subjunctive in AmE, and accordingly label it an ‘archaic expression’, a ‘retention’ or a ‘conservatism’. In a similar vein, Algeo (1992: 604) and Peters (1998: 98, 100) suggest that the higher levels of subjunctive use in AmE require no particular explanation, being simply another effect of the ‘colonial lag’ often adduced in such cases.