Cover not available
Article In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2024
Edited by Marco Bril and Kristel Doreleijers
[Nota Bene 1:2] 2024
► pp. 264–279

Dutch Willen’s steps towards a future marker

 | University of Groningen
Desire verbs commonly change into markers of future events. Bybee et al. (1994) report of the common pattern in language change in which verbs like want become future markers. Van Dooren et al. (2019) observe that Dutch willen ‘want’ shows indications that it is currently on the path from desire to future: A sentence like Het wil nog wel regenen vandaag ‘It will probably rain today’ (lit. It wants particle particle rain today) indicates that rain might happen later today. The desire element has disappeared. In this short paper, we will further specify and explain van Dooren et al.’s semantic analysis of the future use of Dutch willen. We will argue that it is a root modal, which is pragmatically always future-oriented (extending Condoravdi 2002).
Keywords: Semantics, modality, tense, language, change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A three-way ambiguity in willen ‘want’
    • 2.1Ambiguity vs. generality (van Dooren et al. 2019)
    • 2.2Desire vs. non-desire uses (van Dooren et al. 2019)
    • 2.3Future vs. habitual willen
    • 2.4Interim summary
  • 3.The future of future willen
    • 3.1More and less temporal uses of zullen ‘will’
    • 3.2Negative contexts
    • 3.3Intermediate summary
  • 4.A root modal analysis
    • 4.1Counterfactual interpretations
    • 4.2Future willen as a root modal
  • 5.Steps towards a future marker
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (22)
References
Barbiers, Sjef. 1995. The syntax of interpretation. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.
Bochnak, M. Ryan. 2019. Future reference with and without future marking. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny. 2013. De modaliteit van temporaliteit. Nederlandse Taalkunde 18(3). 324–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Dale Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals: modals for the present and for the past. In David Beaver, Luis Casillas, Brady Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The construction of meaning, 59–88. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dooren, Annemarie van, Anouk Dieuleveut, Ailís Cournane & Valentine Hacquard. 2022. Figuring out root and epistemic uses of modals: The role of the input. Journal of Semantics 39(4). 581–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dooren, Annemarie van, Nick Huang & Gesoel Mendes. 2019, November 15. Polysemous want: Language change from a synchronic perspective [Conference presentation]. Formal Diachronic Semantics 41. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
. Submitted. A future for desire verbs: Language change from a synchronic perspective.
Hacquard, Valentine. 2013. Modality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusingerand & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, 1484–1515. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs. Journal of Semantics 9(3), 183–221.Google Scholar
Hogeweg, Lotte. 2009. The meaning and interpretation of the Dutch particle wel . Journal of Pragmatics 41(3). 519–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Theo. 1989. Tempus: Interpretatie en betekenis. De Nieuwe Taalgids 821. 305–329.Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2008. Why will is not a modal. Natural Language Semantics 16(2). 129–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klecha, Peter. 2013. Diagnosing modality in predictive expressions. Journal of Semantics 31(3). 443–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 337–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Paul Portner & Barbara Partee (eds.), Formal semantics: The essential readings, 289–323. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert. 1987. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2017. Between desire and necessity: the complementarity of want and need . In Hilke Reckman, Lisa Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn & Rint Sybesma (eds.), Crossroads semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar, 263–279. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk & Hans Broekhuis. 2013. Temporaliteit en modaliteit. Nederlandse Taalkunde 18(3). 306–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Jerrold Sadock. 1973. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 161. 1–34.Google Scholar