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