Cover not available

Article published In: Concentric
Vol. 47:1 (2021) ► pp.34–60

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

A corpus-based investigation of semantic and syntactic differences between the two major future tense constructions

 | National Taiwan Normal University
Published online: 19 April 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.00022.yeh
Abstract
English has two major future tense constructions, will and be going to. Additionally, English can also use the present tense with a future-marking adverbial to express futurity. However, the distributions of these future markers are not free but limited. Instead of discriminating the differences among these distributions through direct comparison to etymological meanings or intuitive examples, this study offers an account for the semantic and syntactic differences between the two major English future tense constructions by analyzing data retrieved from the British National Corpus (BNC). The focus of attention is chiefly on the semantic and syntactic differences that lead to the choices British English native speakers make when expressing futurity. Based on the empirical analysis of data from the BNC, this study demonstrates that distribution of the future tense constructions seems sensitive to the following factors: (1) event-time orientation (temporal posteriority) or present-time orientation (prospective aspect), (2) the levels of verbal dynamicity in the whole sentence, (3) contexts of subordination, and (4) different text categories. The analysis suggests that the futurity constructions are not in the same distribution but are semantically and syntactically different. Utilizing its findings, this study aims to enhance second language learners’ expression of futurity by providing pedagogical suggestions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Will versus be going to in the literature
    • 2.1Evolution of future meaning
    • 2.2Semantic distinctions
    • 2.3Syntactic distinctions
    • 2.4The speaker’s perspective
  • 3.Method and data
    • 3.1Method
    • 3.2Data
    • 3.3Data retrieval
    • 3.4Research design
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Semantic differences
      • 4.1.1Temporal posteriority: Event-time orientation
      • 4.1.2Prospective aspect: Present-time orientation
      • 4.1.3High or low dynamicity
    • 4.2Syntactic differences
      • 4.2.1Subordination contexts: Syntactically (in)dependent environments
      • 4.2.2EFTCs’ distribution in different types of subordination
    • 4.3Differences in text categories
  • 5.Some implications for language pedagogy
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (35)
References
Agirre, Ainara Imaz. 2015. The acquisition of the dative alternation in English by Spanish learners. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 121:63–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alotaibi, Abdullah M., and Hashan Al-ajmi. 2015. The acquisition of the passive alternation by Kuwaiti EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics 5.1:44–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariamanesh, Ali A., and Zohreh Shojai. 2018. Markedness hypothesis: Study of English dative and benefactive alternation. Applied Linguistics Research Journal 2.3:17–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 1997. Future in present-day English: Corpus-based evidence on the rivalry of expressions. ICAME Journal 211:7–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Expressions of Future in Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
British National Corpus (BNC). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services, from [URL]
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and William Pagliuca. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Anna Giacalone-Ramat, Onofrio Carruba and Giuliano Bernini, 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Close, Reginald Arthur. 1977. Some observations on the meaning and function of verb phrases having future references. Studies in English Usage: The Resources of a Present-Day English Corpus for Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Wolf-Dietrich Bald and Robert Ilson, 125–156. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givón, 81–112. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. E. 1999. The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. The Emergence of Language, ed. by Brian MacWhinney, 197–212. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1:97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane, and Alan Prince. 1986. A prosodic account of the to-dative alternation. Unpublished manuscript. Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1983. Be going to, gaan, and aller: Some observations on the expression of future time. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 21.2:155–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25.2:291–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Brandon. A. 2013. Expressing Future Time in Spoken Conversational English: A Corpus-Based Analysis of the Sitcom Friends. MA thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, Roger. 1981. Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NP’s N and the N of NP. Journal of Linguistics 17.2:247–269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirakawa, Makiko. 2013. Alternations and argument structure in second language English: Knowledge of two types of intransitive verbs. Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom, ed. by Melinda Whong, Kook-Hee Gil, and Heather Marsden, 117–137. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1968. The English Verbs: Form and Meanings. Madison & London: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Dong-Han. 1997. Acquisition of Dative Alternation in English by Second Language Learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1970. This bread I break: Language and interpretation. Linguistics and Literary Style, ed. by Donald C. Freeman, 120–128. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oh, Eunjeong. 2010. Recovery from first-language transfer: The second language acquisition of English double objects by Korean speakers. Second Language Research 26.3:407–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1988. The English Verb (2nd edition). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert. 1998. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning 48.2:281–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research 12.3:329–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2:209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31.4:295–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1978. The nature of future tenses. Universals of Human Language, vol. 3: Word Structure, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 83–123. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman C. 1976. The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English: An Investigation into the Syntax and Semantics of Five Verbal Constructions Expressing Futurity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yook, Cheongmin. 2012. L1 influence on ESL learners’ acquisition of English ditransitive constructions. English Teaching 67.2:27–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The role of frequency in Korean learners’ acquisition of English dative construction. English Teaching 68.1:179–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Zhang, Dong & Tianxin Ge
2025. A Multivariate Analysis of Construction Alternation in English Future Tense. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue