Cover not available

Article published In: Linguistic Constructions
Edited by Beata Trawiński, Marc Kupietz and Kristel Proost
[Languages in Contrast 24:2] 2024
► pp. 170–196

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

Future constructions in English and Norwegian

A contrastive corpus study

ORCiD logo with link | Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany
ORCiD logo with link | University of Poznan, Poland | University Paris 8, France
Published online: 11 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00043.mik
Abstract
The choice between the future constructions will/shall and BE going to is among the most well-investigated topics in English linguistics. A host of semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic factors has been suggested to drive the alternation between these constructions. Recent research has taken a contrastive perspective and investigated whether similar factors also apply to Norwegian, which shows a very similar alternation (skal/vil vs. kommer til å). This paper follows up on this line of research, taking new data into account. Drawing on the Open American National Corpus (OANC) and the Spoken BNC2014 for English on the one hand and the NoTa corpus as well as the Big Brother corpus for Norwegian, we carve out commonalities and differences between the alternation patterns in English and Norwegian, and we argue that in both languages, it may actually be semantic, rather than structural, aspects that play the most crucial role in language users’ choice between competing future constructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research
  • 3.Our study
    • 3.1Data and methods
    • 3.2Results and discussion
      • 3.2.1Conditional inference trees and random forests
      • 3.2.2Collostructional analysis
  • 4.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Data availability
  • Notes
  • References
References (41)
References
Berglund, Y. 2000. Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, C. Mair and M. Hundt (eds.), 35–50. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, A. 2010. Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics 14(2): 217–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brisard, F. 1997. The English tense-system as an epistemic category: the case of futurity. In Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, M. H. Verspoor and E. Sweetser (eds.), 271–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denis, D. and Tagliamonte, S. A. 2018. The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics 22(3): 403–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engel, A. and Szmrecsanyi, B. 2022. Variable grammars are variable across registers: future temporal reference in English. Language Variation and Change 341: 355–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flach, S. 2021. collostructions: An R Implementation for the Family of Collostructional Methods. Retrieved from [URL] [last accessed 23 February 2024]
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2016. Variationist analysis. In Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus-linguistic research, P. Baker and J. Egbert (eds.), 108–123. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Stefanowitsch, A. 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
Hasselgård, H. 2015. Coming and going to the future: Future-referring expressions in English and Norwegian. In Cross-linguistic perspectives on verb constructions, S. O. Ebeling and H. Hasselgård (eds.), 88–115. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. and Zeileis, A. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3), 651–674. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ide, N., Reppen, R. and Suderman, K. 2002. The American national corpus: More than the web can provide. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’02). Las Palmas, Canary Islands — Spain: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). 839–844.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kursa, M. B. and Rudnicki, W. R. 2010. Feature selection with the Boruta package. Journal of Statistical Software 36(11). 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, N. 2020. Conditional Inference Trees and Random Forests. In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, M. Paquot, S. Th. and Gries (eds.), 611–643. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. 2013. On-Going Change in English Modality: Emancipation Through Frequency. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 43(1): 33–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. 2017. “The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and Building a Spoken Corpus of Everyday Conversations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 319–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mac Donald, K. 1982. Uttrykk for ramtid i norsk. Norskrift 391: 74–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, O. and Glynn, D. forthcoming. The future that may still be: the spread of blir å INF in contemporary Norwegian. In Futures of the past, S. Hartmann and L. Schnee (eds). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Mikkelsen, O. and Hartmann, S. 2022. Competing future constructions and the complexity principle: A contrastive outlook. In Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New Approaches to Variability and Change, S. Flach and M. Hilpert (eds.), 9–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, O. and Horbowicz, P. 2022. Modelling Semantics in constructional near-synonymy: A usage-based perspective on Norwgian future constructions. Presentation at the conference “Constructions in the Nordics” (CxgN3), Kiel, Germany, September 2022.
Pijpops, D. 2020. What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 341: 283–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schweinberger, M. 2023. Tree-based models in R. Brisbane: University of Queensland. [URL] [last accessed 22 February 2024]
2021. On the waning of forms — A corpus-based analysis of decline and loss in adjective amplification. In Lost in change. Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Elements and Constructions, S. Kranich and T. Breban (eds.), 235–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2013. Collostructional Analysis. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (eds.), 290–306. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. Th. 2005. Covarying Collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1), 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
Stoppiglia, H., Dreyfus, G., Dubois, R. and Oussar, Y. 2003. Ranking a Random Feature for Variable and Feature Selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research 31: 1399–1414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A. and Hothorn, T. 2007. Bias in Random Forest Variable Importance Measures: Illustrations, Sources and a Solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(25). Retrieved from [URL].
Szmrecsanyi, B. 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
Tagliamonte, S. A. and Baayen, R. H. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(02): 135–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tamminga, M., MacKenzie, L. and Embick, D. 2016. The dynamics of variation in individuals. Linguistic Variation 16(2): 300–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. and Walker, J. A. 2009. The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse. Language 85(2): 321–354. JSTOR. Retrieved from JSTOR.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. and Hartmann, S. 2023. Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vannebo, K. I. 1985. Tempussystemet i norsk. Norskrift 461: 1–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. 2019. Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Mikkelsen, Olaf & Cameron Morin
2025. Register as a source of non-equivalent contracted constructions: going to and gonna in British English. English Language and Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 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