Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:34:51.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the so-called future-progressive construction1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2013

NAOAKI WADA
NAOAKI WADA*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1, Ten-nodai, Tsukuba 305-8571, Japanwada.naoaki.gb@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article aims to systematically explain linguistic facts concerning the will + be -ing construction (WBI construction) in terms of a general theory of tense. For this purpose, temporal structures of the WBI construction are constructed based on the tense theory of Wada (2001, 2009, 2011) by combining temporal structures of sentences containing will with temporal structures of sentences containing present-progressive forms. It is shown that the temporal structure-based analysis not only addresses problems with previous studies, but also illuminates the characteristics of the WBI construction in a unified way.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 391 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank Bas Aarts, Agnès Celle, Patrick Duffley, James Elwood, Yukio Hirose, Priscilla Ishida, Kevin Moore, Junya Watanabe and two anonymous referees for offering valuable comments and/or answering my questions. All remaining inadequacies are my own. This work is supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (nos. 24520530 and 24320088).

References

Primary sources

Kleinbaum, Nancy H. 1989. Dead poets society. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Webb, Charles. 1969. The graduate. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

References

Bald, Wolf-Dietrich & Ilson, Robert (eds.). 1977. Studies in English usage: The resources of a present-day English corpus for linguistic analysis. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Celle, Agnès. 2005. The French future tense and the English will as markers of epistemic modality. Languages in Contrast 5, 181–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celle, Agnès & Smith, Nicholas. 2010. Beyond aspect: Will be -ing and shall be -ing. English Language and Linguistics 14 (2), 239–69.Google Scholar
Close, Reginard A. 1977. Some observations on the meaning and function of verb-phrases having future reference. In Bald & Ilson (eds.), 125–56.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2009. Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1997. When-clauses and temporal structure. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat, in collaboration with Reed, Susan & Cappelle, Bert. 2006. The grammar of the English verb phrase, vol. 1: The grammar of the English tense system: A comprehensive analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 1992. The English infinitive. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John & Woisetschlaeger, Erick. 1982. The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13 (1), 79–89.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1970. Functional diversity in languages as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6, 322–61.Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter H. 1967. The simple and progressive forms: An analytical analysis. Quebec: Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Hirtle, Walter H. & Curat, Violetta N.. 1986. The simple and the progressive: ‘Future’ use. Transactions of the Philological Society 84 (1), 42–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1969. Some observations on tense and deixis in English. Language 45 (4), 777–806.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1995. The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language 19 (2), 399–446.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo A. J. M. 1996. Tense in reported speech and its frame of reference. In Janssen & van der Wurff (eds.), 237–59.Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo A. J. M. & van der Wurff, Wim (eds.). 1996. Reported speech. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kashino, Kenji. 1999. Tensu to asupekuto no gohoo [Usage of tense and aspect]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Klinge, Alex. 2005. Where there is a will, there is a modal. In Klinge & Müller (eds.), 169–86.Google Scholar
Klinge, Alex & Müller, Genrik Høeg (eds.). 2005. Modality: Studies in form and function. London and Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. A note on vagueness and ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 1 (3), 357–9.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1987. Meaning and the English verb, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 1993. ‘Continuity’ within three scalar models: The polysemy of adverbial still. Journal of Semantics 10, 193–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakau, Minoru. 1994. Ninti imiron no genri [Principles of cognitive semantics]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Nehls, Dietrich. 1988. Modality and the expression of future time in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 26 (4), 295–307.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1988. The English verb, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1982. The simple futurate: Not simply progressive futurate minus progressive. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 18, 453–65.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael. 2009. Degrees of modality. In Salkie, Busuttil & van der Auwera (eds.), 79–103.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael. 2010. Will: Tense or modal or both? English Language and Linguistics 14 (2), 187–215.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael, Busuttil, Pierre & van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). 2009. Modality and English: Theory and description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sawada, Harumi. 2006. Modarithi [Modality]. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Constraints on coordination. Language 53 (1), 86–103.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1981. The futurate progressive: Not simply future + progressive. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 17, 369–82.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael. 1995. Practical English usage, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Thomson, Audrey J. & Martinet, Agnes V.. 1986. A practical English grammar, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2001. Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (10), 1505–1528.Google Scholar
Wada, Naoaki. 2001. Interpreting English tenses: A compositional approach. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Wada, Naoaki. 2009. The present progressive with future time reference vs. be going to: Is Doc Brown going back to the future because he is going to reconstruct it? English Linguistics 26 (1), 96–131.Google Scholar
Wada, Naoaki. 2011. On the mechanism of temporal interpretation of will-sentences. Tsukuba English Studies 29, 37–61.Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman Chr. 1976. The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Whitaker, Sidney F. 1983. The future progressive: An experimental approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 21 (2), 145–54.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2002. Non-progressive and progressive aspect in English. Fasano: Schena Editore.Google Scholar
Zhu, Jing. 2004. Intention and volition. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34 (2), 175–94.Google Scholar