Cover not available

In:The Progressive Revisited: Historical and Quantitative Studies in Germanic and Romance Languages
Edited by Alessandro Carlucci and Jerzy Nykiel
[Studies in Language Companion Series 236] 2025
► pp. 98–125

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

How progressive is gonna be Ving?

 | Laboratoire Parole et Langage
 | University of Picardie Jules Verne
Published online: 12 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.236.04azo
Abstract
This paper focuses on the construction gonna be Ving in the iWeb corpus, a very recent web-based corpus of more than 14 billion words. Our analysis shows that gonna be Ving is relatively rare but exhibits specific distributional patterns different from gonna V, notably a less frequent association with inanimate subjects. The semantic-pragmatic analysis reveals that be Ving, the progressive infinitive, encodes not only ongoingness but a specific speaker stance we call hyper-assertiveness with gonna be Ving: The future event is seen as pre-arranged by external constraints or prior subject intention, and the speaker presents the future situation as bound to happen, no matter what. In some cases, be Ving functions as an evidential tool presenting the prediction as based on pre-existing evidence, which leads the speaker to disclaim any personal responsibility.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Gonna and the progressive infinitive in English: theoretical issues
    • 2.1Gonna
      • 2.1.1Grammaticalization and Construction Grammar theories
      • 2.1.2Semantic features: Intention and inference
    • 2.2The progressive
      • 2.2.1General considerations on the progressive in Present-Day English
      • 2.2.2The progressive: Ongoingness and beyond
      • 2.2.3The progressive infinitive: From ongoingness to commitment issues
  • 3.Gonna in the iWeb corpus
    • 3.1Data and methodology
    • 3.2Distribution of gonna V and gonna be Ving
      • 3.2.1Pronouns: Results
      • 3.2.2Types of verbs: Results
    • 3.3Semantic-pragmatic analysis
      • 3.3.1Progressive infinitive as an aspectual booster
      • 3.3.2Progressive infinitive and hyper-assertiveness: Towards a more assertive and less subjective inference
      • 3.3.3Progressive infinitive and hyper-assertiveness:
        Towards a more assertive intention
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (63)
References
Aarts, Bas, Close, Jo & Wallis, Sean. 2010. Recent changes in the use of the progressive construction in English. In Distinctions in English Grammar, Offered to Renaat Declerck, Bert Cappelle & Naoaki Wada (eds), 148–167. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2014. The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic view of evidentials and the expression of information source. In The Grammar of Knowledge: A Cross-linguistic Typology, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds), 1–51. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2021. Antconc. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ayoun, Dalila, Celle, Agnès & Lansari, Laure. 2018. Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality. [Studies in Language Companion Series 197]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belladelli, Anna. 2009. The Interpersonal function of going to in written American English. Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments. [Language and Computers 69], Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 309–325. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. 1. Collection TEL 7. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale. 2. Collection TEL 47. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 2000. Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (eds), 35–49. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey N., Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2016. Language change because Twitter Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. In English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change, Lauren Squires (ed.), 149–178. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 2001. Be going to: An exercise in grounding. Journal of Linguistics 37(2): 251–285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celle, Agnès & Lansari Laure. 2009. La référence à l’avenir en anglais contemporain: Vers une énonciation médiatisée. Faits de Langues 33(1): 103–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Celle, Agnès & Smith, Nicholas. 2010. Beyond Aspect: Will be -ing and shall be -ing. English Language & Linguistics 14(2): 239–269. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and Quasi-Modals in English. [Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 67]. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2012. Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 463-508. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culioli, Antoine. 1990. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: Opérations et représentations. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999a. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: Domaine notionnel. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999b. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: Formalisation et opérations de repérage. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: Tours et détours. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daugs, Robert. 2017. On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the 19th and 20th centuries. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 19. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Contractions, constructions and constructional change: Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar. [Constructional Approaches to Language 32], Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere (eds), 12–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Available Online at [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. The iWeb Corpus. Available Online at [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eisenstein, Jacob, O’Connor, Brendan, Smith, Noah & Xing, Eric. 2014. Mapping the geographical diffusion of new words. PLoS ONE 9(11): e113114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2011. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds), 52–72. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gesuato, Sara. 2008. The progressive form of the “be going to” future: A preliminary report. In From Didactas to Ecolingua: An Ongoing Research Project on Translation and Corpus Linguistics, Anthony Baldry, Maria Pavesi, Carol Taylor Torsello & Christopher Taylor (eds), 205–228. Trieste: Università degli Studi di Trieste.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gesuato, Sara & Facchinetti, Roberta. 2011. GOING TO V vs GOING TO BE V-Ing: Two equivalent patterns. ICAME JOURNAL 35: 59–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2022. Coll.Analysis 4.0. A Script for R to Compute Perform Collostructional Analyses. <[URL]>.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guentchéva, Zlatka. 1996. L’énonciation médiatisée. Louvain & Paris: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. of Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8(1): 47–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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(2): 221–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johansson, Marjut & Suomela-Salmi, Eija. 2008. Énonciation. In Handbook of Pragmatics 12, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds), 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam: Radopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania. 2004. Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 359–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2004. Meaning and the English Verb. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Berlin: Language Science Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013. From reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word. In Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis, Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds), 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: To-contraction in American English. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 244–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, David & Tizón-Couto, David. 2016. Perception of reduced words: Chunking and predictability. In ExLing 2016: Proceedings of 7th Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics, 99–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Coalescence and contraction of V-to-Vinf sequences in American English — Evidence from spoken language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 20(1): 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Not just frequency, not just modality: Production and perception of English semi-modals. In Re-Assesing Modalising Expressions: Categories, Co-text, and Context, Pascal Hohaus & Rainer Schulze (eds), 79–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Machová, Dagmar. 2015. The degree of grammaticalization of gotta, gonna, wanna and better: A corpus study. Topics in Linguistics 15(1). Google Scholar logo with link to 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: 111–122.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCulloch, Gretchen. 2019. Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2007. The Spread of the progressive and its “future” use. English Language & Linguistics 11(1): 191–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. 1st ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ranger, Graham. 2018. Discourse Markers: An Enunciative Approach. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rautionaho, Paula. 2014. Variation in the Progressive: A Corpus-based Study into World Englishes. PhD dissertation, Tampere University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rautionaho, Paula & Fuchs, Robert. 2021. Recent change in stative progressives: A collostructional investigation of British English in 1994 and 2014. English Language & Linguistics 25(1): 35–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Römer, Ute. 2005. Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A Corpus-Driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, K. Aaron. 2007. The Development of the English progressive. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19(3): 205–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 167–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2002. Non-Progressive and Progressive Aspect in English. [Biblioteca Della Ricerca Linguistica 12]. Fasano: Schena.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue