Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies: Online-First Articles

Future-time reference in spoken EFL

More complex than in ENL?

| Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
| Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
| KU Leuven, Belgium
Previous research has given much attention to how native speakers of English and, to a lesser extent, speakers of World Englishes, choose between will and be going to to talk about the future. There is, however, a lack of research investigating how learners of English as a Foreign Language choose between these future markers at different proficiency levels. We collected 3,616 instances of will and be going to from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus, which consists of spoken language from low-intermediate to advanced learners of English from various mother tongue backgrounds. These future marker observations were annotated for constraints known to probabilistically influence the choice of variant and then analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Results show that learners are sensitive to more constraints than native speakers, suggesting that the forms serve more distinct functions. As learners become more proficient, they consider fewer constraints and thereby better approximate native speakers.
Keywords: EFL, will , be going to , future marker alternation, proficiency, SLA
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methods
    • 2.1The corpus
    • 2.2Data collection
    • 2.3Data annotation
      • 2.3.1Sentence type
      • 2.3.2Negation
      • 2.3.3Clause type
      • 2.3.4Persistence
      • 2.3.5Temporal proximity
      • 2.3.6Temporal adverb
      • 2.3.7Verb type
      • 2.3.8Person and animacy
      • 2.3.9Clause length
    • 2.4Data analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Negation
    • 3.2Persistence
    • 3.3Temporal proximity
    • 3.4Temporal adverb
    • 3.5Verb type
    • 3.6Clause length
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Why do learners deviate from native speakers regarding these probabilistic constraints?
    • 4.2How and why do learners acquire constraints that are not part of native speakers’ probabilistic grammar?
    • 4.3Prescriptivism: An alternative explanation?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Data availability statement
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 17 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00030.dub
References (79)
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Chapter Seven: Past, Present, and Future. Language Learning, 50 (s1), 409–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in future expression. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 189–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). The Future of Desire: Lexical Futures and Modality in L2 English Future Expression. Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, 1–12. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. (2010). Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics, 14 (2), 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohmann, A. (2024). Future-time reference in world Englishes. World Englishes, 43 (1), 2–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisard, F. (2001). Be going to: An exercise in grounding. Journal of Linguistics, 37 (2), 251–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burton, G. (2023). Grammar in ELT and ELT Materials: Evaluating its History and Current Practice. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Clyde, L., & Parker, R. (2015). Pass Trinity Now 5–6 and ISE I. Black Cat.Google Scholar
Clyde, L., & West, S. (2015). Pass Trinity Now 7–8 and ISE II. Black Cat.Google Scholar
Cochrane, S. (2015). Pass Trinity Now 3–4 and ISE Foundation. Black Cat.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Denis, D., & Tagliamonte, S. A. (2018). The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics, 22 (3), 403–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C., & Gries, S. Th. (2014). A Case for the Multifactorial Assessment of Learner Language: The Uses of May and Can in French-English Interlanguage. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy (Vols. 11–Book, Section, pp. 179–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, T., Grafmiller, J., Paquot, M., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2023a). Animacy effects in the English genitive alternation: Comparing native speakers and EFL learner judgments with corpus data. Language and Cognition. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, T., Paquot, M., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2023b). Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: The genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19 (3), 427–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 19 1, 100–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2019). Cognitive approaches to Second Language Acquisition. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning (pp. 41–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1999). Item versus system learning: Explaining free variation. Applied Linguistics, 20 (4), 460–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engel, A. (2022). The register-specificity of probabilistic grammars in English and Dutch — Combining corpus analysis and experimentation. KU Leuven, Leuven.Google Scholar
Engel, A., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2023). Variable grammars are variable across registers: Future temporal reference in English. Language Variation and Change, 34 (3), 355–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fehringer, C., & Corrigan, K. P. (2015). The rise of the going to future in Tyneside English: Evidence for further grammaticalisation. English World-Wide, 36 (2), 198–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (2003). Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8 1, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2019). The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Development, description and application. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5 (2), 126–158.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. H. (2017). Grammatical variation and change in industrial Cape Breton. University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine, 27 (15), 2865–2873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Götz, S., Wolk, C., & Jäschke, K. (2022). A contrastive interlanguage analysis across L1s, task types and learning context variables: Contextualizing fluency in advanced spoken learner language. In A. Leńko-Szymańska & S. Götz (Eds.), Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Learner Corpus Research (pp. 273–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2021). Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10 (1), 95–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2018). On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies, 1(2), 276–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2022). What do (most of) our dispersion measures measure (most)? Dispersion? Journal of Second Language Studies, 5(2), 171–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical Measures for Usage-Based Linguistics. Language Learning, 65 (S1), 228–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, T. (2015). Pass Trinity Now 9–10. Black Cat.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). New York (N.Y.): Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Humphries, J. (2017a). Ready for Trinity GESE Grades 3–4 and ISE Foundation. ELI Publishing.Google Scholar
(2017b). Ready for Trinity GESE Grades 5–6 and ISE I. ELI Publishing.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2018). Second language structural priming: A critical review and directions for future research. Second Language Research, 34 (4), 539–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäschke, K., & Plag, I. (2016). The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38 (3), 485–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 (1), 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 1(Article 226), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mishan, F. (2022). The Global ELT coursebook: A case of Cinderella’s slipper? Language Teaching, 55 (4), 490–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62 (1), 302–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R. (2019). English Grammar in Use. A self-study reference and practice book for intermediate learners of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2010). The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of forms or change in discourse? English Language & Linguistics, 14 (2), 163–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxenden, C., & Latham-Koenig, C. (2006). New English File: Advanced Student’s book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paquot, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2019). Particle placement alternation in EFL learner vs. L1 speech: Assessing the similarity of probabilistic grammars. In A. Abel, A. Glaznieks, V. Lyding, & L. Nicolas (Eds.), Widening the Scope of Learner Corpus Research. Selected Papers from the Fourth Learner Corpus Research Conference (pp. 71–92). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Tagliamonte, S. (2000). The grammaticization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change, 11 (3), 315–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2022). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL]
Redstone, C., & Cunningham, G. (2005a). Face2face elementary. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005b). Face2face intermediate. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005c). Face2face pre-intermediate. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). Face2face upper-intermediate (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (2), 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romberg, A. R., & Saffran, J. R. (2010). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 1 (6), 906–914. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A. (2016). The variation of will vs. Be going to: Future time marking in spoken Ghanaian English. In O. Timofeeva, A.-C. Gardner, A. Honkapohja, & S. Chevalier (Eds.), New approaches to English linguistics: Building bridges (pp. 141–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, N. L. (2014). Grammatical complexification in Spanish in New York: 3sg pronoun expression and verbal ambiguity. Language Variation and Change, 26 (3), 303–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2005). Headway pre-intermediate (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009a). Headway advanced (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009b). Headway beginner (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009c). Headway intermediate (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Headway upper-intermediate (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2003). Be Going to Versus Will/Shall: Does Syntax Matter? Journal of English Linguistics, 31 (4), 295–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., Durham, M., & Smith, J. (2014). Grammaticalization at an early stage: Future be going to in conservative British dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 18 (1), 75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, M., MacKenzie, L., & Embick, D. (2016). The dynamics of variation in individuals. Linguistic Variation, 16 (2), 300–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tooley, K. M., & Bock, K. (2014). On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension. Cognition, 132 (2), 101–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres-Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A. (2009). The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse. Language, 85 (2), 321–354. Google Scholar
Wang, J., & Xu, C. (2015). Cue Competition between Animacy and Word Order: Acquisition of Chinese Notional Passives by L2 Learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 5 1, 213–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, T., & Le Foll, E. (2022). Testing the pedagogical norm: Comparing if-conditionals in EFL textbooks, learner writing and English outside the classroom. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 8 (1), 31–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. (2016). A Friendly Conspiracy of Input, L1, and Processing Demands: That-variation in the Language of German and Spanish Learners of English. In A. Tyler, L. Ortega, H. I. Park, & M. Uno (Eds.), The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Gries, S. Th., & Lester, N. (2018). Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. In A. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp. 99–120). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., Lester, N., & Martinez-Garcia, M. T. (2014). That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition, 6 (2), 271–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009). Mixed effects modelling for nested data. In A. F. Zuur, E. N. Ieno, N. Walker, A. A. Saveliev, & G. M. Smith (Eds.), Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R (pp. 101–142). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar