1887
Volume 47, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1810-7478
  • E-ISSN: 2589-5230
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

English has two major future tense constructions, and . 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/consl.00022.yeh
2021-04-19
2021-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agirre, Ainara Imaz
    2015 The acquisition of the dative alternation in English by Spanish learners. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics12:63–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alotaibi, Abdullah M. , and Hashan Al-ajmi
    2015 The acquisition of the passive alternation by Kuwaiti EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics5.1:44–52. 10.5539/ijel.v5n1p44
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n1p44 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ariamanesh, Ali A. , and Zohreh Shojai
    2018 Markedness hypothesis: Study of English dative and benefactive alternation. Applied Linguistics Research Journal2.3:17–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berglund, Ylva
    1997 Future in present-day English: Corpus-based evidence on the rivalry of expressions. ICAME Journal21:7–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2005Expressions of Future in Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. British National Corpus (BNC)
    British National Corpus (BNC). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services, fromwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
  7. Bybee, Joan L. , Revere D. Perkins , and William Pagliuca
    1994The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. 10.1075/cilt.48.09byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.48.09byb [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
    2007Information Structure: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. Gries, Stefan Th. , and Anatol Stefanowitsch
    2004 Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics9.1:97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  14. Grimshaw, Jane , and Alan Prince
    1986 A prosodic account of the to-dative alternation. Unpublished manuscript. Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Haegeman, Liliane
    1983Be going to, gaan, and aller: Some observations on the expression of future time. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching21.2:155–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1989Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics25.2:291–317. 10.1017/S0022226700014110
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014110 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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]
  18. Hawkins, Roger
    1981 Towards an account of the possessive constructions: NP’s N and the N of NP. Journal of Linguistics17.2:247–269. 10.1017/S002222670000699X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670000699X [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑6362‑3_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6362-3_7 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hopper, Paul J. , and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    1993Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Joos, Martin
    1968The English Verbs: Form and Meanings. Madison & London: The University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lee, Dong-Han
    1997 Acquisition of Dative Alternation in English by Second Language Learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Oh, Eunjeong
    2010 Recovery from first-language transfer: The second language acquisition of English double objects by Korean speakers. Second Language Research26.3:407–439. 10.1177/0267658310365786
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310365786 [Google Scholar]
  25. Palmer, Frank R.
    1988The English Verb (2nd edition). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Schmitt, Norbert
    1998 Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning48.2:281–317. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00042
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00042 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2008 Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research12.3:329–363. 10.1177/1362168808089921
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921 [Google Scholar]
  29. Song, Eu-Jong , and Min-Chang Sung
    2017 A corpus-based study of contextual factors influencing Korean EFL learners’ dative alternation: Lexical verbs, syntactic weights, and information structures. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics40.1:19–39. 10.1075/aral.40.1.03son
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.40.1.03son [Google Scholar]
  30. Stefanowitsch, Anatol , and Stefan Th. Gries
    2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8.2:209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  31. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
    2003Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter?Journal of English Linguistics31.4:295–323. 10.1177/0075424203257830
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424203257830 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Wekker, Herman C.
    1976The 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]
  34. Yook, Cheongmin
    2012 L1 influence on ESL learners’ acquisition of English ditransitive constructions. English Teaching67.2:27–50. 10.15858/engtea.67.2.201207.27
    https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.67.2.201207.27 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2013 The role of frequency in Korean learners’ acquisition of English dative construction. English Teaching68.1:179–200. 10.15858/engtea.68.1.201303.179
    https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.1.201303.179 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/consl.00022.yeh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/consl.00022.yeh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error