Cover not available
Article In:
Linguistic Constructions
Edited by Beata Trawiński, Marc Kupietz and Kristel Proost
[Languages in Contrast 24:2] 2024
► pp. 170–196

Future constructions in English and Norwegian

A contrastive corpus study

ORCID logo | University of Poznan, Poland | University Paris 8, France
ORCID logo | Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany
The choice between the future constructions will/shall and BE going to is among the most well-investigated topics in English linguistics. A host of semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic factors has been suggested to drive the alternation between these constructions. Recent research has taken a contrastive perspective and investigated whether similar factors also apply to Norwegian, which shows a very similar alternation (skal/vil vs. kommer til å). This paper follows up on this line of research, taking new data into account. Drawing on the Open American National Corpus (OANC) and the Spoken BNC2014 for English on the one hand and the NoTa corpus as well as the Big Brother corpus for Norwegian, we carve out commonalities and differences between the alternation patterns in English and Norwegian, and we argue that in both languages, it may actually be semantic, rather than structural, aspects that play the most crucial role in language users’ choice between competing future constructions.
Keywords: future constructions, alternations, English/Norwegian
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research
  • 3.Our study
    • 3.1Data and methods
    • 3.2Results and discussion
      • 3.2.1Conditional inference trees and random forests
      • 3.2.2Collostructional analysis
  • 4.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Data availability
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (41)
References
Berglund, Y. 2000. Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, C. Mair and M. Hundt (eds.), 35–50. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 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
Brisard, F. 1997. The English tense-system as an epistemic category: the case of futurity. In Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, M. H. Verspoor and E. Sweetser (eds.), 271–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denis, D. and 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
Engel, A. and Szmrecsanyi, B. 2022. Variable grammars are variable across registers: future temporal reference in English. Language Variation and Change 341: 355–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flach, S. 2021. collostructions: An R Implementation for the Family of Collostructional Methods. Retrieved from [URL] [last accessed 23 February 2024]
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2016. Variationist analysis. In Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus-linguistic research, P. Baker and J. Egbert (eds.), 108–123. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on “Alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H. 2015. Coming and going to the future: Future-referring expressions in English and Norwegian. In Cross-linguistic perspectives on verb constructions, S. O. Ebeling and H. Hasselgård (eds.), 88–115. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. and Zeileis, A. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3), 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ide, N., Reppen, R. and Suderman, K. 2002. The American national corpus: More than the web can provide. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’02). Las Palmas, Canary Islands — Spain: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 839–844.Google Scholar
Kursa, M. B. and Rudnicki, W. R. 2010. Feature selection with the Boruta package. Journal of Statistical Software 36(11). 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. 2020. Conditional Inference Trees and Random Forests. In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, M. Paquot, S. Th. and Gries (eds.), 611–643. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, D. 2013. On-Going Change in English Modality: Emancipation Through Frequency. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 43(1): 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. 2017. “The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and Building a Spoken Corpus of Everyday Conversations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 319–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mac Donald, K. 1982. Uttrykk for ramtid i norsk. Norskrift 391: 74–87.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, O. and Glynn, D. forthcoming. The future that may still be: the spread of blir å INF in contemporary Norwegian. In Futures of the past, S. Hartmann and L. Schnee (eds). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Mikkelsen, O. and Hartmann, S. 2022. Competing future constructions and the complexity principle: A contrastive outlook. In Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New Approaches to Variability and Change, S. Flach and M. Hilpert (eds.), 9–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, O. and Horbowicz, P. 2022. Modelling Semantics in constructional near-synonymy: A usage-based perspective on Norwgian future constructions. Presentation at the conference “Constructions in the Nordics” (CxgN3), Kiel, Germany, September 2022.
Pijpops, D. 2020. What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 341: 283–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schweinberger, M. 2023. Tree-based models in R. Brisbane: University of Queensland. [URL] [last accessed 22 February 2024]
2021. On the waning of forms — A corpus-based analysis of decline and loss in adjective amplification. In Lost in change. Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Elements and Constructions, S. Kranich and T. Breban (eds.), 235–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2013. Collostructional Analysis. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.), 290–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. Th. 2005. Covarying Collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoppiglia, H., Dreyfus, G., Dubois, R. and Oussar, Y. 2003. Ranking a Random Feature for Variable and Feature Selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research 31: 1399–1414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A. and Hothorn, T. 2007. Bias in Random Forest Variable Importance Measures: Illustrations, Sources and a Solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(25). Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
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. and Baayen, R. H. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(02): 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, M., MacKenzie, L. and Embick, D. 2016. The dynamics of variation in individuals. Linguistic Variation 16(2): 300–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. and Walker, J. A. 2009. The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse. Language 85(2): 321–354. JSTOR. Retrieved from JSTOR.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. and Hartmann, S. 2023. Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vannebo, K. I. 1985. Tempussystemet i norsk. Norskrift 461: 1–60.Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. 2019. Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar