Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:38:27.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: a Construction Grammar perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2010

ALEXANDER BERGS
ALEXANDER BERGS*
Affiliation:
University of Osnabrück, Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (IfAA), Fachbereich 7, Neuer Graben 40, D-49069 Osnabrück, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes and analyses five different ways of expressing futurity in English (shall/will, be going to, be to, the simple present and the present progressive) in a Construction Grammar framework. It suggests that the different expressions can be captured as an onomasiologically motivated family of constructions in which the single constructions are differentiated by complex co- and contextual configurations. The latter can be elegantly captured in a Construction Grammar framework since constructions by definition can include pragmatic features. Also, this article claims that constructions may be equipped with an additional ‘context slot’, in which co- and contextual information can be stored. In a final section, this article turns to the issue of tense as a grammatical phenomenon and its genesis in grammaticalisation processes. It is suggested that a Construction Grammar account can make the age-old debate about a future tense in English redundant. Instead, it complements studies in grammaticalisation and opens up some interesting perspectives on parallel developments in the onto- and phylogenesis of constructions.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 2: Future time reference in English , July 2010 , pp. 217 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

Arnovick, Leslie. 1990. The development of future constructions in English: The pragmatic modal and temporal will and shall in Middle English. Frankfurt and New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2000. Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 1999. Utilising present-day English corpora: A case study concerning expressions of future. ICAME Journal 24, 25–63.Google Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 2000a. Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. In Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory, 35–49. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 2000b. ‘You're gonna, you're not going to’: A corpus-based study of colligation and collocation patterns of the (BE) going to construction in present-day spoken British English. In Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk, Barbara & Melia, Patrick James (eds.), PALC’99: Practical applications in language corpora, 161–92. Frankfurt and New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2008. Shall and shan't in contemporary English: A case of functional condensation? In Trousdale, Graeme and Gisbourne, Nikolas (eds.), Constructional approaches to the grammar of English, 113–44. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2008. Context and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Heine, Lena. To appear. Mood in English. In Thieroff, Rolf & Rothstein, Björn (eds.), Mood in the European languages. 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
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. In Doris Schönefeld (ed.), Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications (Constructions, special volume 1). Available online: www.constructions-online.de/articles/specvol1/683 (accessed 10 February 2010).Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2009. Contextual cues for particle placement. In Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Context and construction, 145–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Close, Reginald Arthur. 1970. Problems of the future tense (2). English Language Teaching Journal 25 (1), 43–9.Google Scholar
Close, Reginald Arthur. 1988. The future in English. In Bald, Wolf-Dietrich (ed.), Kernprobleme der englischen Grammatik: Sprachliche Fakten und ihre Vermittlung, 51–66. Munich: Langenscheidt-Longman.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat, in collaboration with Susan Reed & Bert Cappelle. 2006. The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Swart, Henriette. 1998. Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16 (2), 347–86.Google Scholar
De Swart, Henriette. 2000. Tense, aspect and coercion in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Formal Grammar Conference, University of California, Berkeley. Available online: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/5/bfg00/bfg00deswart.pdf (accessed 2 February 2010).Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles & Atkins, Beryl. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Lehrer, Adrienne & Kittay, Eva Feder (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantics and lexical organization, 75–102. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2008. Constructions and constructs: mapping a shift between predication and attribution. In Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Constructions and language change, 47–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Östman, Jan-Ola. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, Mirjam & Östman, Jan-Ola (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gee, Julie & Savasir, Iskender. 1985. On the use of ‘will’ and ‘gonna’: Toward a description of activity-types for child language. Discourse Processes 8: 143–75.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, Julie. 1985. An interpretive approach to the study of modality: What child language can tell the linguist. Studies in Language 9: 127–229.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, Julie & Savasir, Iskender. 1986. The use of simple present in the speech of two three-year-olds: Normativity not subjectivity. Language in Society 15, 501–36.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7 (5), 219–24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80 (3), 532–68.Google Scholar
Goodman, Fred. 1973. On the semantics of futurate sentences. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 16, 76–89.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York and London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2003. Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In Cuyckens, Hubert, Dirven, René & Taylor, John R. (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 67–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As time goes by: Tense and universal grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–1949. A modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1968. The English verb: Form and meanings. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1997. Words and the grammar of context. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 1998. On identifying an evasive gram: Action narrowly averted. Studies in Language 22 (1), 113–60.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1970. Tense and its relation to participants. Language 46, 838–49.Google Scholar
Larreya, Paul. 2000. Modal verbs and the expression of futurity in English, French and Italian. In van der Auwera, Johan & Dendale, Patrick (eds.), Modal verbs in Germanic and Romance languages, special issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14, 115–29.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edition. London: Pearson.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, Stanisław (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, 1537–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 1998. Aspectual grammar and past time reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2005. Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In Östman, Jan-Ola & Fried, Miriam (eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 45–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nehls, Dieter. 1978. Semantik und Syntax des englischen Verbs. Teil I: Tempus und Aspekt. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2007. Diachronic analysis with the internet? Will and shall in ARCHER and in a corpus of e-texts from the web. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the web, 287–306. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Daniela & Atance, Cristina. 2000. ‘Maybe my daddy give me a big piano’: The development of children's use of modals to express uncertainty. First Language 20 (58), 29–54.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1974. The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1991. Mood and modality. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. Frame semantics. In Verschueren, Jef, Östman, Jan-Ola, Blommaert, Jan & Bulcaen, Chris (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Svartvik, Jan & Leech, Geoffrey. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 2007. Constructions. Constructions special volume 1. Available online: www.constructions-online.de.Google Scholar
Shatz, Marilyn & Wilcox, Sharon A.. 1991. Constraints on the acquisition of English modals. In Gelman, Susan A. & Byrnes, James P. (eds.), Perspectives on language and thought. Interrelations in development, 319–53. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. Be going to versus will-shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31 (4), 295–323.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1985. ‘I will be drowned and no man shall save me’: The conventional rules for shall and will in eighteenth-century English grammars. English Studies 66, 123–42.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2006. Constructions and language change revisited: The concepts of constructional emergence and coercion from the perspective of grammaticalization. Paper presented at CGN3, Düsseldorf, 1–2 April.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. The grammaticalisation of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Context and constructions, 23–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wekker, Hermann. 1976. The expression of future time in contemporary English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2006. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (5), 990–1028.Google Scholar