Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:25:48.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The changing future: competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2017

DEREK DENIS  and
SALI A. TAGLIAMONTE
DEREK DENIS
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria BC V8W 2Y2, [email protected]
SALI A. TAGLIAMONTE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, 100 St George Street, Room 4077, Sidney Smith Hall, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H1, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The English future temporal reference system has long been recognized as a variable system undergoing change. The main variants in contemporary English (will and be going to) have both been argued to have gone through (and to potentially still be undergoing) grammaticalization. At the same time, be going to has been gradually increasing in frequency relative to will over the last 500 years. However, investigation of the ongoing development of this system has been sparse. This article makes use of a large contemporary sociolinguistic corpus of a mainstream variety of North American English and the apparent-time construct. Several factors that have been implicated in the development of this system (Sentence Type, Clause Type, Proximity, Verb Type, and the Animacy and Grammatical Person of the Subject) are considered and a multiplex series of changes are uncovered. Underlying an overall, albeit slow, change in frequency towards be going to, we find evidence for specialization of one or the other variant in different linguistic contexts, neutralization of a constraint consistent with ongoing loss of variant nuances through semantic bleaching, and the persistence of constraints consistent with morphological doublet competition.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , November 2018 , pp. 403 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for Postdoctoral Fellowship no. 756-2015-0557 (to Denis) and Research Grants from 2001 to the present (to Tagliamonte). We would also like to thank our colleagues from the University of Toronto Language Variation and Change Group for their suggestions, especially J. K. Chambers, Aaron Dinkin, Matt Hunt Gardner, Ruth Maddeaux, Alex Motut and Naomi Nagy. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at LSA in Minneapolis (2014), where we gained important insights from questions and comments from the audience, especially Bronwyn Bjorkman and Brian Joseph. Lastly, we'd like to thank our editor, Bernd Kortmann, and two anonymous ELL reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions.

References

Bailey, Charles-James N. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy, Wikle, Tom, Tinnery, Jan & Sand, Lori. 1991. The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3 (3), 241–64.Google Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 1997. Future in present-day English: Corpus-based evidence on the rivalry of expressions. ICAME Journal 21, 7–19.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1971. ‘Will’ and ‘be going to’. Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 40–53.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: Consequences for the nature of constructions. In Bybee, Joan & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget. 2001. Be going to as a case of High Aspect. In Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan & Zvolenszky, Zsofia (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XI, 95–113. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget. 2009. The semantics of the Future. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2015. Not always variable: Probing beneath the vernacular grammar. Language Variation and Change 27, 255–85.Google Scholar
Danchev, Andrei & Kytö, Merja. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 59–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek. 2011. Innovators and innovation: Tracking the innovators of and stuff in York English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17 (2), 60–70.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek. 2015. The development of pragmatic markers in Canadian English. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1925. The periphrastic future with shall and will in modern English. Publications of the Modern Linguistic Association of America 40, 963–1024.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1989. Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25, 291–317.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23, 265–340.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1, 199–244.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Beals, Katie (ed.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 2, 180–201. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 17–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997. The spread of the going-to-future in written English: A corpus-based investigation into language change in progress. In Hickey, Raymond & Puppel, Stanislav (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling, 1537–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies and beyond. In Lindqvist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 121–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2012. Mechanisms of language change in a functional system. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2, 83–132.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1996. Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the corpus of Early English correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike & Stephen, Levey. 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in north-east England. English Language and Linguistics 15, 441–71.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2000. The grammaticalization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11, 315–42.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali A.. 2001. African American English in the diaspora. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Turpin, Danielle. 1999. Does the FUTUR have a future in (Canadian) French? Probus 11, 134–64.Google Scholar
Roy, Joseph. 2007. Peering into the future: The emergence of going to in the 18th century. Presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 36, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988 Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, 140–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David & Thibault, Pierrette. 1981. Weak complementarity: Tense and aspect in Montreal French. In Syntactic change, 205–16. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. ‘Be going to’ versus ‘will/shall’: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31, 295–323.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 1998. Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10 (2), 153–91.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2000. The story of KOM in Nigerian Pidgin English. In McWhorter, John (ed.), Theoretical issues in pidgin and creole studies, 353–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002. Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter & Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change, 729–63. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2003. ‘Every place has a different toll’: Determinants of grammatical variation in cross-variety perspective. In Rohdenberg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 531–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006a. ‘So cool, right?’ Canadian English entering the 21st century. Canadian English in a global context, special issue of Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51, 309–31.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006b. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics 12, 361–94.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Baayen, Harald R.. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24, 135–78.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide, 28, 47–87.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & D'Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85, 58–108.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Denis, Derek. 2010. The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics 38, 335–68.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., Durham, Mercedes & Smith, Jennifer. 2014. Grammaticalization at an early stage: Future ‘be going to’ in conservative British dialects. English Language and Linguistics 18, 75–108.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James A.. 2009. The present of the English Future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85, 321–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1963/73. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans & Sankoff, Gillian. 2011. Age grading in the Montréal French inflected future. Language Variation and Change 23, 275–313.Google Scholar
Wekker, H. C. 1976. The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Whyte, John. 1944. The future tense in English future and modal auxiliaries: ‘Shall’ and ‘will’, ‘to be going’. College English 5, 333–7.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2014. Changes in the verb phrase in legal English. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey & Wallis, Sean (eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora., 353–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar