Cover not available
Part of
Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New approaches to variability and change
Edited by Susanne Flach and Martin Hilpert
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 105] 2022
► pp. 8–39

Competing future constructions and the Complexity Principle

A contrastive outlook

| Paris 8 University | Adam Mickiewicz University
| Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
This paper presents a contrastive study on the role of syntactic complexity in the choice between different future constructions in English and Norwegian. Previous work on the English future alternation (BE going to vs. will) has shown that going to is preferred in syntactically complex contexts. We replicate this result for English on the basis of data from the Spoken BNC 2014. In addition, we address the question of whether this account can be generalized to another language that shows a very similar alternation, namely Norwegian (skal/vil vs. kommer til å). We use data from the Norwegian Speech Corpus (NoTa) and the BigBrother corpus, showing that syntactic complexity correlates with the shorter form skal here. We take this as an indication that the observed syntactic distribution is actually a side-effect of semantic differences and suggest possible explanations for this.
Keywords: future constructions, alternations, complexity principle, comparative linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The future alternation and the Complexity Principle
    • 2.1Previous research
    • 2.2The complexity principle
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1Corpora
    • 3.2Variables
      • 3.2.1Dependent variables: Length and meaning of construction
      • 3.2.2Independent variables: Negation and interrogation
      • 3.2.3Independent variables: Subordination and if-clauses
      • 3.2.4Random-effect variables: Speaker and lemma
      • 3.2.5Inter-annotator agreement
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Distribution in corpora
    • 4.2Modelling the variation
    • 4.3Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.105.01mik
References (51)
Corpora
SPOKENBNC2014 = Spoken BNC 2014, <[URL]>, see Love et al. 2017.
BigBrother = BigBrother-korpuset, Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo. <[URL]>
NoTa = Norsk talespråkskorpus – Oslodelen, Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo. <[URL]>
References
Artstein, Ron & Poesio, Massimo. 2008. Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics 34(4): 555–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 2005. Expressions of Future in Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Approach. PhD dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Bergs, Alexander. 2010. Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics 14(2): 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1971. Will and be going to. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 40–53. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Close, Reginald A. 1988. The future in English. In Kernprobleme der Englischen Grammatik: Sprachliche Fakten und Ihre Vermittlung, 51–66. München: Langenscheidt-Longman.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. On identifying future tenses. In Tempus – Aspekt – Modus. Die Lexikalischen und Grammatischen Formen in den Germanischen Sprachen, Werner Abraham & Theo Janssen (eds), 51–63. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen (ed.). 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denis, Derek & Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2018. The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics 22(3): 403–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2015. Tilegnelse av verbale kategorier. In Norsk Andrespråkssyntaks, Kristin Melum Eide (ed.), 135–196. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2021. Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: A corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in mod+adv collocations. English Language & Linguistics. 25(4): 743–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2016. Variationist analysis. In Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus-Linguistic Research, Paul Baker & Jesse Egbert (eds), 108–123. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2019. On classification trees and random forests in corpus linguistics: Some words of caution and suggestions for improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 617–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1989. Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25: 291–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3): 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2015. Coming and going to the future: Future-referring expressions in English and Norwegian. In Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Verb Constructions, Signe Oksefjell Ebeling & Hilde Hasselgård (eds), 88–115. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2006. A synchronic perspective on the grammaticalization of Swedish future constructions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(2): 151–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change [Constructional Approaches to Language 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd edn). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, David W., Lemeshow, Stanley & Sturdivant, Rodney X. 2013. Applied Logistic Regression (3rd edn). New York NY: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1995. The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language 19(2): 399–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2017. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. Richard & Koch, Gary G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1): 159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1971. Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19: 849–856.Google Scholar
Lie, Svein. 2005. Kontrastiv Grammatikk – Med Norsk i Sentrum. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013. On-going change in English modality: Emancipation through frequency. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 43(1): 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony. 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, Kirsti. 1982. Uttrykk for ramtid i norsk. Norskrift 39: 74–87.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Shinichi & Schielzeth, Holger. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2): 133–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1997. A relevance-theoretic account of be going to. Linguistics 33: 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola, Kahane, Sylvain, Lacheret, Anne & Sabio, Fréderic. 2014. The notion of sentence and other discourse units in corpus annotation. In Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 61], Tommaso Raso & Heliana Mello (eds), 331–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Speelman, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stefan & Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle: Evidence from argument realization. Language and Cognition 10(3): 514–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (31 March 2022).
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Rehbein, Ines. 2019. Detecting the boundaries of sentence-like units in spoken German. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS2019), 130–139. Nürnberg: FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2002. The Expression of Future Time Reference. MA thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.
. 2003. Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31(4): 295–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. How difficult is grammatical variation, really? Keynote lecture presented at Grammar and Corpora 8, Cracow (Poland), November 2020.
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James A. 2009. The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85(2): 321–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1985. Tempussystemet i norsk. Norskrift 46: 1–60.Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman C. 1976. The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English: An Investigation into the Syntax and Semantics of Five Verbal Constructions Expressing Futurity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo. 2019. Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Glynn, Dylan & Olaf Mikkelsen
2024. Concrete constructions or messy mangroves? How modelling contextual effects on constructional alternations reflect theoretical assumptions of language structure. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.