Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:36:16.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond aspect: will be -ing and shall be -ing1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2010

AGNÈS CELLE  and
NICHOLAS SMITH
AGNÈS CELLE
Affiliation:
Université Paris Diderot – Paris 7, U.F.R. Etudes Anglophones Charles V – Centre de Linguistique Interlangues, Lexicologie, Linguistique Anglaise et de Corpus (CLILLAC), Centre Charles V – Bâtiment C, 8/10, rue Charles V, 75004 Paris, [email protected]
NICHOLAS SMITH
Affiliation:
School of English, Sociology, Politics & Contemporary History, University of Salford, Manchester M5 4WT, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the synchronic status and diachronic development of will be -ing and shall be -ing (as in I'll be leaving at noon).2 Although available since at least Middle English, the constructions did not establish a significant foothold in standard English until the twentieth century. Both types are also more prevalent in British English (BrE) than American English (AmE).

We argue that in present-day usage will/shall be -ing are aspectually underspecified: instances that clearly construe a situation as future-in-progress are in the minority. Similarly, although volition-neutrality has been identified as a key feature of will/shall be -ing, it is important to take account of other, generally richer meanings and associations, notably ‘future-as-matter-of-course’ (Leech 2004), ‘already-decided future’ (Huddleston & Pullum et al. 2002) and non-agentivity. Like volition-neutrality, these characteristics appear to be relevant not only in contemporary use, but also in their historical expansion. We show that the construction has evolved from progressive aspect towards more subjectivised evidential meaning.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 2: Future time reference in English , July 2010 , pp. 239 - 269
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

Primary sources

Bellow, Saul. 1964. Herzog. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, William. 1985. School ties. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
Boyd, William. 1993. The blue afternoon. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.Google Scholar
Brookner, Anita. 1985. Family and friends. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Le Carré, John. 2001. The constant gardener. London: Hodder & Stoughton, Coronet Books.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Karin. 1998. Stiffs, Sydney Theatre Company. Wollongong: Five Islands Press.Google Scholar
Bellow, Saul. 1964. Herzog. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, William. 1985. School ties. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
Boyd, William. 1993. The blue afternoon. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.Google Scholar
Brookner, Anita. 1985. Family and friends. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Le Carré, John. 2001. The constant gardener. London: Hodder & Stoughton, Coronet Books.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Karin. 1998. Stiffs, Sydney Theatre Company. Wollongong: Five Islands Press.Google Scholar

References

Adamczewski, Henri & Delmas, Claude. 1982. Grammaire linguistique de l'anglais. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Henri, Adamczewski & Gabilan, Jean-Pierre. 1996. Déchiffrer la grammaire anglaise. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1985. The semantic development of will. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical semantics: Historical word-formation, 11–21. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Charles. 1964. Linguistic change in Present-Day English. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward & Atkinson, Dwight. 1994. ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. In Fries, Udo, Tottie, Gunnel & Schneider, Peter (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora, 1–14. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Blokh, Mikhail. 1994 [1983]. A course in theoretical English grammar. 2nd edition. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.Google Scholar
Bouscaren, Janine, Deschamps, Alain & Mazodier, Catherine. 1993. Eléments pour une typologie des procès. Cahiers de recherche en grammaire anglaise no. 6, 7–34. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, 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
Celle, Agnès & Lansari, Laure. 2009. La référence à l'avenir en anglais contemporain: Vers une énonciation médiatisée. Le futur, Faits de Langue 34, 103–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christ, Oliver. 1994. A modular and flexible architecture for an integrated corpus query system. Proceedings of COMPLEX’94: 3rd Conference on Computational Lexicography and Text Research, 23–32. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat, in collaboration with Susan Reed & Bert Cappelle. 2006. The grammar of the English Verb Phrase, vol. 1: The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. IV: 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donabédian, Anaïd. 2001. Towards a semasiological account of evidentials: An enunciative approach of -er in Modern Western Armenian. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 421–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenning, D. 1771. A new grammar of the English language. London: Dilly.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson. 1965. A standard corpus of edited present-day American English. College English 26: 267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gachelin, Jean-Marc. 1997. The progressive and habitual aspects in non-standard Englishes around the world: general studies, British Isles, North America. In Schneider, Edgar W. (ed.), Studies in honour of Manfred Görlach, 33–46. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Garside, Roger & Smith, Nicholas. 1997. A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS 4. In Garside, Roger, Leech, Geoffrey & McEnery, Anthony (eds.), Corpus annotation: Linguistic information from computer text corpora, 102–21. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guentchéva, Zlatka. 1996. Introduction. In Guentchéva, Zlatka (ed.), L'énonciation médiatisée, 11–18. Louvain and Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian & Janda, Richard (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hirtle, William H. 1967. The simple and progressive forms: An analytical approach. Quebec: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, 17–35. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1995. The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language 19 (2), 399–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8 (1), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4, 221–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larreya, Paul. 1999. BE + -ING est-il un marqueur d'aspect? Anglophonia Caliban 6, 135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred & Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 223–40. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edition. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ljung, Magnus. 1980. Reflections on the English progressive (Gothenburg Studies in English 46). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.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, Stanislaw (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak, 1537–43. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne. 1995. Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43 (2), 111–22.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael. 1998. Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mettouchi, Amina. 1997. Aspect et négation: Remarques sur l'inaccompli et la négation en anglais et en berbère (kabyle). In Borillo, Andrée, Vetters, Carl & Vuillaume, Marcel (eds.), Regards sur l'aspect, Cahiers Chronos no. 2, 191–205. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyahara, F. 1996. Aspect as an English grammatical category: Groundwork for the aspect theory. Tokyo: Shohokusha.Google Scholar
Mossé, Fernand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique. 2 vols. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax, part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2007. The spread of the progressive and its ‘future’ use. English Language and Linguistics, 11 (1), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1979. Modality and the English modals. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1987. The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edition. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred & Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 1–17. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Samuels, Michael. 1972. Linguistic evolution: With special reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena & Williams, Christopher. 2006. Changing the rules: A comparison of recent trends in English in academic scientific discourse and prescriptive legal discourse. In Dossena, Marina & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on domain-specific English, 255–76. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy. 1996. An historical study of English: Form, function and change. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2002. Ever moving on? The progressive in recent British English. In Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter & Smith, Adam (eds.), New frontiers of corpus research, 317–30. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2005. A corpus-based investigation of recent change in the use of the progressive in British English. Unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The progressive in 19th-century English: A process of integration. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A history of English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic changes. Language 65 (1), 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2003. Modal verbs in Tyneside English. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred & Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 373–87. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsangalidis, Anastasios. 1999. Will and tha: A comparative study of the category future. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman. 1976. The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2002. Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena Editore.Google Scholar