Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T06:00:51.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Be going to and will: a monosemous account1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Steve Nicolle
Steve Nicolle
Affiliation:
Middlesex University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides an account of be going to and will within the framework of Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986, 1995). Because of the range of interpretations derived from the use of these expressions in different contexts, many previous accounts have characterized them as polysemous. This polysemy has been attributed to semantic retention, whereby both old (lexical) and new (grammaticalized) meanings are recovered in certain contexts. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate: (i) that although be going to does exhibit semantic retention, in a relevance-theoretic framework this does not entail polysemy, and (ii) that interpretations of will previously attributed to semantic retention are, in fact, pragmatically derived, and hence will is also monosemous.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , November 1998 , pp. 223 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Pagliuca, W. (1987). The evolution of future meaning. In Ramat, A. G., Carruba, O. & Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W. & Perkins, R. D. (1991). Back to the future. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol.2: Focus on types of grammatical markers. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 17–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R.D. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caenepeel, M. & Moens, M. (1990). Progressives, perfects and the temporal structure of discourse. In Kamp, H. (ed.), Tense and aspect in English. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh DYANA. 39–47.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. M. (ed.), Mental representations: the interface between language and reality Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 155–81.Google Scholar
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London etc.: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. (1984). ‘Pure future’ will in if-clauses. Lingua 63: 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, R. (1991). Tense in English: its structure and use in discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. & Depraetere, I. (1995). The double system of tense forms referring to future time. Journal of Semantics 12: 269–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, I. (1994). Some observations on the expression of temporal relations in future-time relative clauses. Linguistics 32: 459–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrman, M. E. (1966). The meanings of the modals in present-day American English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groefsema, M. (1995). Can, may, must and should: a relevance theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 31: 53–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1983). The semantics of will in present-day British English: a unified account. Brussels: AWLSK.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1989). Be going to and will: a pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25: 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Wekker, H. Chr. (1984). The syntax and interpretation of futurate conditionals in English. Journal of Linguistics 20: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirtle, W. H. & Curat, V. N. (1986). The simple and the progressive: ‘future’ use. Transactions of the Philological Society 84: 42–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinge, A. (1993). The English modal auxiliaries: from lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 29: 315–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. (1987). Meaning and the English verb, 2nd edn.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolle, S. (1997). A relevance-theoretic account of be going to. Journal of Linguistics 33: 355–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, S. (1998). A relevance-theoretic perspective on grammaticalisation. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Partee, B. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. (1984). Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 243–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, M. R. (1982). The core meanings of the English modals. Journal of Linguistics 18: 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Francis Pinter.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. (1989). Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 683–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. & Smith, A. (1988). A relevance theoretic account of conditionals. In Hyman, L. & Li, C. (eds.), Language, speech and mind: studies in honor of Victoria A. Fromkin. London: Routledge. 322–52.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (re)considerations of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 18: 645–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. L. (1991). The semantics and pragmatics of can. Linguistische Berichte 135: 325–45.Google Scholar
Warner, A. (1993). English auxiliaries: structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wekker, H. Chr. (1976). The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam etc.: North Holland.Google Scholar
Wekker, H. Chr. (1980). Temporal subordination in English. In Zonneveld, W. & Weerman, F. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1977–1979. Dordrecht: Foris. 96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. P. (1996). A synchronic perspective in the grammaticalisation of WILL in hypothetical predicates. Studies in Language 20: 411–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. P. (1997). Retention in ontogenetic and diachronic grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 207–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar