Cover not available
Article published In:
Concentric
Vol. 47:1 (2021) ► pp.34–60

A corpus-based investigation of semantic and syntactic differences between the two major future tense constructions

| National Taiwan Normal University

English has two major future tense constructions, will and be going to. Additionally, English can also use the present tense with a future-marking adverbial to express futurity. However, the distributions of these future markers are not free but limited. Instead of discriminating the differences among these distributions through direct comparison to etymological meanings or intuitive examples, this study offers an account for the semantic and syntactic differences between the two major English future tense constructions by analyzing data retrieved from the British National Corpus (BNC). The focus of attention is chiefly on the semantic and syntactic differences that lead to the choices British English native speakers make when expressing futurity. Based on the empirical analysis of data from the BNC, this study demonstrates that distribution of the future tense constructions seems sensitive to the following factors: (1) event-time orientation (temporal posteriority) or present-time orientation (prospective aspect), (2) the levels of verbal dynamicity in the whole sentence, (3) contexts of subordination, and (4) different text categories. The analysis suggests that the futurity constructions are not in the same distribution but are semantically and syntactically different. Utilizing its findings, this study aims to enhance second language learners’ expression of futurity by providing pedagogical suggestions.

Keywords: English future tense constructions, semantic differences, syntactic environments, corpus-based analysis, L2 learning
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Will versus be going to in the literature
    • 2.1Evolution of future meaning
    • 2.2Semantic distinctions
    • 2.3Syntactic distinctions
    • 2.4The speaker’s perspective
  • 3.Method and data
    • 3.1Method
    • 3.2Data
    • 3.3Data retrieval
    • 3.4Research design
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Semantic differences
      • 4.1.1Temporal posteriority: Event-time orientation
      • 4.1.2Prospective aspect: Present-time orientation
      • 4.1.3High or low dynamicity
    • 4.2Syntactic differences
      • 4.2.1Subordination contexts: Syntactically (in)dependent environments
      • 4.2.2EFTCs’ distribution in different types of subordination
    • 4.3Differences in text categories
  • 5.Some implications for language pedagogy
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 19 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.00022.yeh
References
Agirre, Ainara Imaz
2015 The acquisition of the dative alternation in English by Spanish learners. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 121:63–90.Google Scholar
Alotaibi, Abdullah M., and Hashan Al-ajmi
2015 The acquisition of the passive alternation by Kuwaiti EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics 5.1:44–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariamanesh, Ali A., and Zohreh Shojai
2018 Markedness hypothesis: Study of English dative and benefactive alternation. Applied Linguistics Research Journal 2.3:17–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berglund, Ylva
1997 Future in present-day English: Corpus-based evidence on the rivalry of expressions. ICAME Journal 211:7–20.Google Scholar
2005 Expressions of Future in Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
British National Corpus (BNC)
Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services, from [URL]
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca
1987 The evolution of future meaning. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Anna Giacalone-Ramat, Onofrio Carruba and Giuliano Bernini, 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Close, Reginald Arthur
1977 Some observations on the meaning and function of verb phrases having future references. Studies in English Usage: The Resources of a Present-Day English Corpus for Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Wolf-Dietrich Bald and Robert Ilson, 125–156. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
2007 Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979 From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 81–112. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. E.
1999 The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. The Emergence of Language, ed. by Brian MacWhinney, 197–212. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004 Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1:97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane, and Alan Prince
1986 A prosodic account of the to-dative alternation. Unpublished manuscript. Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
1983  Be going to, gaan, and aller: Some observations on the expression of future time. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 21.2:155–157.Google Scholar
1989  Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25.2:291–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Brandon. A.
2013 Expressing Future Time in Spoken Conversational English: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Sitcom Friends. MA thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Roger
1981 Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NP’s N and the N of NP . Journal of Linguistics 17.2:247–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirakawa, Makiko
2013 Alternations and argument structure in second language English: Knowledge of two types of intransitive verbs. Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom, ed. by Melinda Whong, Kook-Hee Gil, and Heather Marsden, 117–137. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin
1968 The English Verbs: Form and Meanings. Madison & London: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Dong-Han
1997 Acquisition of Dative Alternation in English by Second Language Learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
1970 This bread I break: Language and interpretation. Linguistics and Literary Style, ed. by Donald C. Freeman, 120–128. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Oh, Eunjeong
2010 Recovery from first-language transfer: The second language acquisition of English double objects by Korean speakers. Second Language Research 26.3:407–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R.
1988 The English Verb (2nd edition). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert
1998 Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning 48.2:281–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research 12.3:329–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2:209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2003  Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31.4:295–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ultan, Russell
1978 The nature of future tenses. Universals of Human Language, vol. 3: Word Structure, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 83–123. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman C.
1976 The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English: An Investigation into the Syntax and Semantics of Five Verbal Constructions Expressing Futurity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Yook, Cheongmin
2012 L1 influence on ESL learners’ acquisition of English ditransitive constructions. English Teaching 67.2:27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 The role of frequency in Korean learners’ acquisition of English dative construction. English Teaching 68.1:179–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar