A corpus-based investigation of differences between the future tense constructions

What is it about?

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.

Featured Image

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Why is it important?

Two main constructions for expressing the future in English, will and be going to, are to a small extents semantically and syntactically different. Additionally, their distributions are limited due to these semantic and syntactic differences. By analyzing data retrieved from the BNC instead of directly comparing their etymological meanings or intuitive examples, this study offers an account for the semantic and syntactic differences which lead to the choices that British English speakers make between will and be going to when expressing futurity. Semantically, will has its basic meanings: (non)factuality and temporal posteriority, and will then expresses an event time which occurs after the speech time. Compared to will, be going to expresses prospective aspect, so it is present-time oriented. Usually the verb after be going to has two phases, and then it expresses an event which occurs at the end of the first phase (e.g., source phase) and is ready to go into the second phase (e.g., target phase). In addition, the construction be going to originally referred to motion through space, so its selection is also prompted by the dynamicity of the actions and events encoded. Syntactically, there is a positive correlation between the distribution of the future markers and their syntactic environments. Be going to occurs more frequently in syntactically dependent clauses. That is to say, the construction will is instead more frequent in syntactically independent clauses. As for their distribution in different subordination structures, whereas will has the tendency to occur in both nominal and adverbial clauses, be going to mainly occurs in nominal clauses. Similarly, the distribution of the two English future tense constructions, will and be going to, varies in different categories of texts as well. The will construction is used more frequently in the informative categories (i.e., Belief and Thought, and Commerce and Finance), while be going to is used to a very high extent in the Imaginative category. Due to these semantic and syntactic differences, the two major English future tense constructions have their own limited and slightly different distributions. The differences then lead to different choices that British English speakers make to express futurity. When expressing futurity, L2 learners could be taught to choose the appropriate future tense construction based on an awareness of the semantic differences and the different syntactic environments of the two constructions instead of on their own unreliable intuition.

Perspectives