Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:30:52.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future time reference expressed by be to in Present-day English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2010

RENAAT DECLERCK
RENAAT DECLERCK*
Affiliation:
Reigersvliet 11, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article argues that be to is primarily a modal auxiliary expressing the necessity of future actualization of the ‘residue-situation’ (= the situation referred to by the clause minus be to). Eight possible ‘M-origins’ (= origins of the necessity) are identified. The ‘futurish’ use of be to in present-day English is closely related to these modal uses, especially to the use in which the M-origin is an official arrangement.

The modal interpretation shifts to a futurish interpretation when the emphasis shifts from the present existence of the necessity to the future actualization of the residue-situation. This shift of emphasis is accompanied by a loss of doubt about this future actualization.

In other words, the futurish reading comes to the fore when the (strong or weak) origin of the necessity is bleached, so that the hearer's attention is directed to the future actualization of the residue-situation. Various cases of such bleaching are treated. In some cases (e.g. when be to collocates with still or yet, as in He is still to keep the first of his promises), the bleaching of the M-origin is complete, so that only the sense of futurity (and hence of ‘not-yet-factuality’) is left. In some examples there is no clear difference between be to and will any more, so that the two are interchangeable within the same sentence.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 2: Future time reference in English , July 2010 , pp. 271 - 291
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

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Close, Reginald A. 1980. Will in if-clauses. In Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan (eds.), Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk, 100–9. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cygan, Jan. 1972. Tense and aspect in English and Slavic. Anglica Wratislaviensia 2, 5–12.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara. 1988. A note on the so-called indicative conditionals. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 24, 123–31.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991a. Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991b. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2003. How to manipulate tenses to express a character's point of view. Journal of Literary Semantics 32, 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat, in collaboration with Susan Reed & Bert Cappelle. 2006a. The grammar of the English tense system. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2006b. The interaction between the English tense system and some modal and aspectual concepts. Cahiers de Praxématique 47, 49–73.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 2009. ‘Nonfactual at t’: A neglected modal concept. In Salkie, Raphael, Busuttil, Pierre & Van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), Modality in English: Theory and description, 31–54. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat & Reed, Susan. 2001. Conditionals: A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1976. Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Review article on Frank R. Palmer. The English verb, 1974. Lingua 40, 331–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. English grammar: An outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2006. The decline of be to and the rise of be going to in Late Modern English: connection or coincidence? In Houswitschka, Christoph, Knappe, Gabriele & Müller, Anja (eds.), Proceedings of the conference of the German association of university teachers of English (Bamberg 2005), 515–29. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1928. A grammar of Late Modern English, part I: The sentence, first half: The elements of the sentence, 2nd edition. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Randolph, Quirk, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1970. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar