Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 4:3 (1977) ► pp.281–301

Shall and Will in English Grammars

A Revised History

| Syracuse University
The future tense in English has been difficult to understand and describe, particularly where rules for the verbal auxiliaries shall and will are concerned. The impression that rules for shall and will were largely the fabrication of 18th-century grammarians was first created by the work of Charles C. Fries. Evidence from the grammatical tradition, however, does not warrant the conclusions Fries drew. Whereas Fries suggested that the first hint of a differentiation in the use of shall and will was in Mason’s grammar (1622), evidence strongly suggests that even before Mason, grammarians hinted at differences in the uses of the two auxiliaries. Fries credited John Wallis (1653) with the definite rule for shall in the first person to correspond with will in the second and third; actually, the distinction was made before Wallis. Fries credited Lowth (1762) with the rules for interrogative sentences, yet a full discussion of questions is found in Maittaire (1712). Fries indicated that the first complete scheme of conventional rules was found in William Ward (1767), yet Ward was anticipated by James White (1761). Fries implied a closer relationship between Ward and Murray (1795) than the evidence warrants. And Fries provided no evidence for his assertion that the rules became a standard feature of English and American grammars only after 1825. Thus the rules for shall and will were actually remarkably perceptive, if incomplete, descriptions of an elegant usage of some speakers of the language, framed in spite of methodological restrictions of the tradition grammarians worked in.
Published online: 1 January 1977
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.4.3.02moo
References (43)
References
Alston, R(obin) C(arfrae). 1965. A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Printing to the Year 1800. Volume I1, “English Grammars Written in English and English Grammars Written in Latin by Native Speakers”. Leeds: printed for the author by E. J. Arnold & Sons.Google Scholar
Baugh, Albert C(roll). 1957. A History of the English Language. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. (1st ed., 1934.)Google Scholar
Brightland, John (d.1717), and Charles Gildon (1665–1724). 1711. A Grammar of the English Tongue. London: printed for John Brightland. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Brown, Goold (1791–1857). 1851. Grammar of English Grammars. London: Delf & Trübner.Google Scholar
Charleston, B(ritta) M(arian). 1941. Studies on the Syntax of the English Verb. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Cooper, Christopher (c. 1655–1698). 1685. Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae. London. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1968.)Google Scholar
Dobson, E(ric) J(ohn). 1968. English Pronunciation 1500–1700. Vol. I1: Surrey of the Sources. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1st ed., 1957.)Google Scholar
Ehrman, Madeline. 1966. The Meanings of the Modals in Present-Day American English. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiehler, Rudolph. 1969. “Regional Influence on Shall and Will ”. Studies in Language, Literature; and Culture of the Middle Ages and Later. Ed. by E(lmer) Bagby Atwood and Archibald A(nderson) Hill, 13–19. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fowle, William B. (1795–1865). 1829. The True English Grammar, Founded on Authority as well as Propriety; being the second part of an attempt to form a grammar of the English language not modelled upon those of Latin, Greek, etc. Boston: Hilliard Gray.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles Carpenter (1887–1967). 1925. “The Periphrastic Future with Shall and Will in Modern English”. PMLA 401.963–1024. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, Alexander (1565–1635). 1621. Logonomia Anglica. London: Johannes Beale. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Greenwood, James (d.1737). 1711. An Essay Towards a Practical English Grammar. London: R. Tookey. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Hulbert, James R(oot, b1884) 1947. “On the Origin of the Grammarians’ Rules for the Use of Shall and Will ”. PMLA 521.1178–82.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part IV1: Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin. (Repr., 1961.)Google Scholar
Johnson, Samuel (1709–84). 1755. English Grammar (Appended to his Dictionary of the English Language). London: W. Strahan for J. and P. Knapton. (Repr. in facs., New York: AMS Press, 1967.)Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1968. The English Verb: Form and meanings. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press. (1st ed., 1964.)Google Scholar
Kennedy, Arthur G. 1927. A Bibliography of Writings on the English Language, from the Beginning of Printing to the End of 1922, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press. (Repr., New York: Hafner, 1967.)Google Scholar
Lowth, Robert (1710–1787). 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. London: J. Hughs for A. Millar and J. Dodsley. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Lyman, Rollo L. 1922 (for 1921). English Grammar in American Schools before 1850. ( = U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin no. 121.) Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Maittaire, Michael (1668–1747). 1712. The English Grammar. London: W. B. for H. Clemens. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1967.)Google Scholar
Mason, George. 1622. Grammaire Angloise. Londres: Nat. Butter. (Ed. by Rudolf Brotanek, Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1905.)Google Scholar
Michael, Ian. 1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Moody, Patricia A. 1972. Charles C. Fries on ‘Shall’ and ‘Will’: An Episode in the History of Schoolroom Grammar. Diss., Univ. of Texas at Austin. (Summary in DAb 33:3621A [1972].)Google Scholar
Murray, Lindley (1745–1826). 1799. English Grammar, adapted to the different classes of Learners. 4th ed. Dublin: John Gough.Google Scholar
Nist, John. 1966. A Structural History of English. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F(rank) R(obert). 1968. A Linguistic Study of the English Verb. Coral Gables, Fla.: Univ. of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Palsgrave, John (1480–1554). 1530. L’Esclaircissement de la langue françoyse. London. (Repr., Geneva: Slatkine, 1972.)Google Scholar
Peyton, V. J. 1794. Les Elemens de la Langue Angloise. Philadelphia: Wrigley & Berriman, for Mathew Carey. (Orig. publ., London: Payne & Cropley, and J. Walter, 1761.)Google Scholar
Poldauf, Ivan. 1948. On the History of Some Problems of English Grammar before 1800. Prague: Nákl. Filos. Fak., Univ. Karlovy.Google Scholar
Poole, Joshua (d. before 1657). 1646. The English Accidence. London: R. C. for Henry Scile. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Priestley, Joseph (1733–1804). 1761. The Rudiments of English Grammar. London:for R. Griffiths. (Facs.- repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Pyles, Thomas. 1964. The Origins and Development of the English Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. (2nd ed., 1971.)Google Scholar
Robertson, Stuart (1892–1940). 1954. The Development of Modern English. 2nd ed. rev. by Frederic G(omes) Cassidy. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954. (1st ed., 1934.)Google Scholar
Taglicht, J(oseph). 1970. “The Genesis of the Conventional Rules for the Use of Shall and Will ”. ES 511.193–213.Google Scholar
Tomkis, Thomas (d.1634?) 1612. De Analogia Anglicani Sermonis. (MS cited by Michael 1970:398–99.)Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1969. Historical Syntax of the English Language. III1, First Half: Syntactical Units with Two Verbs. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Vorlat, Emma. 1964. Progress in English Grammar, 1585–1735. 41 vols. Luxembourg: A. Peiffer.Google Scholar
Wallis, John (1616–1703). 1653. Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae. Oxford: for Leon. Lichfield. (Photostat of 4th ed. of 1674 in Brit. Mus.)Google Scholar
Ward, William (1708–72). 1765. An Essay on Grammar. London: for Robert Horsfield. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
. [1766?]. A Practical Grammar of the English Language. York: A. Ward for C. Etherington.Google Scholar
Wekker, H. Chr. 1976. The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
White, James (d. about 1812). 1761. The English Verb. London: for A. Millar. (Facs.-repr., Menston: Scolar Press, 1969.)Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Frank, Thomas
1983. The first Italian grammars of the English language. Historiographia Linguistica 10:1-2 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.