Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



It is well known that Spanish futurizing morphology is frequently used not to express futurity, but instead to formulate a hypothesis, i.e. express epistemic modality. Although this is possible with both synthetic or periphrastic future marking, the synthetic future tense is more likely to express an epistemic reading than the periphrastic future. This paper explores the relationship between futurizing morphology and sentence type on the basis of a quantitative analysis of about  = 2,700 tokens of synthetic and periphrastic ‘future’ constructions in spoken conversations from Madrid, Buenos Aires and Santiago de Chile. On the basis of a bottom-up classification of these tokens regarding their potential to express modal meanings, we demonstrate that polar and partial futurizing interrogatives are more likely to display modal meanings and associated rhetorical effects than futurizing declaratives. This effect is even stronger for synthetic future constructions, due to a conventionalization of specific form-function pairings. Finally, we also document substantial dialectal variation in the use of futurizing morphology.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aaron, Jessica
    2006 Variation and change in Spanish future temporal expression. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Agresti, Alan
    2010Analysis of ordinal categorical data, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Wiley. 10.1002/9780470594001
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470594001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blas Arroyo, José L.
    2011Deber (de) + infinitivo: ¿un caso de variación libre en español? Factores determinantes en un fenómeno de alternancia sintáctica. Revista de Filología Española91(1). 9–42. 10.3989/rfe.2011.v91.i1.214
    https://doi.org/10.3989/rfe.2011.v91.i1.214 [Google Scholar]
  4. Butt, John & Carmen Benjamin
    2011A new reference grammar of modern Spanish, 5th edn. Arnold: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Christensen, Rune H. B.
    2019 Ordinal – regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2019 12–10. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal. Last accessed23 June 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Company Company, Concepción & Javier Cuétara Priede
    2014Manual de gramática histórica. México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cresti, Emanuela & Massimo Moneglia
    2005C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated reference corpora for spoken Romance languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.15 [Google Scholar]
  8. Downing, Angela
    2001 “Surely you knew!” Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language8(2). 251–282. 10.1075/fol.8.2.05dow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.8.2.05dow [Google Scholar]
  9. Ehmer, Oliver & Malte Rosemeyer
    2018 When “questions” are not questions: Inferences and conventionalization in Spanish but-prefaced partial interrogatives. Open Linguistics4. 70–100. 10.1515/opli‑2018‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Enfield, Nick J. , Penelope Brown & Jan P. de Ruiter
    2012 Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sentence- final particles in comparative perspective. In Jan P. de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional, and interactional perspectives, 193–221. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139045414.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139045414.014 [Google Scholar]
  11. Escandell-Vidal, María V.
    2010 Futuro y evidencialidad. Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica26. 9–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2014 Evidential futures: The case of Spanish. In Philippe de Brabanter , Mikhail Kissine & Saghie Sharifzadeh (eds.), Future tense vs.future time: An introduction, 219–246. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2018 Evidential commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions. Journal of Pragmatics128. 102–115. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fiengo, Robert
    2007Asking questions: Using meaningful structures to imply ignorance. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208418.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199208418.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Garachana, Mar
    2019 De cuando ir a + infinitivo no se dirige al futuro: Construcciones gramaticales de pasado, sentido completivo y focalizador. Una aproximación desde la Gramática de Construcciones. Revista Española de Lingüística49(1). 119–146. 10.31810/RSEL.49.6
    https://doi.org/10.31810/RSEL.49.6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gennari, Silvia
    2000 Semantics and pragmatics of future tenses in Spanish. In Héctor Campos , Elena Herburger , Alfonso Morales-Front & Thomas J. Walsh (eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millennium, 264–281. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gómez Manzano, Pilar
    1992Perífrasis verbales con infinitivo (valores y usos en la lengua hablada). Madrid: UNED.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gries, Stefan Th
    2015 The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora10(1). 95–125. doi:  10.3366/cor.2015.0068
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hayano, Kaoru
    2013 Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 395–414. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heritage, John
    2012 Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1). 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, Valen E. & James H. Albert
    2004 Ordinal regression models. In David Kaplan (ed.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences, 151–174. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. 10.4135/9781412986311.n9
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986311.n9 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jørgensen, Annette Myre & Esperanza Eguía Padilla
    2017Proyecto COLA. Corpus oral de languaje adolescente. www.colam.org/. Last accessed21 December 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Koshik, Irene
    2003Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies5. 51–77. 10.1177/14614456030050010301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010301 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ledgeway, Adam & Martin Maiden
    2016The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677108.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Marín Arrese, Juana I.
    2017 Multifunctionality of evidential expressions in discourse domains and genres: Evidence from cross-linguistic case studies. In Juana I. Marín Arrese , Gerda Haßler & Marta Carretero (eds.), Evidentiality revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives, 195–224. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.271.09mar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271.09mar [Google Scholar]
  26. Matte Bon, Francisco
    2006 Maneras de hablar del futuro en español entre gramática y pragmática. Futuro, ir a + infinitivo y presente de indicativo: análisis, usos y valor profundo. RedELE 6. www.educacion.es/redele/revista6/MatteBon.pdf. Last accessed25 March 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Moreno de Alba, José G.
    1993El español en América. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Nuyts, Jan
    2001Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  29. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001Mood and modality. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  30. R Core Development Team
    R Core Development Team 2019R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.4.2 (Kite-Eating Tree). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org. Last accessed1 July 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rivero, María Luisa
    2014 Spanish inferential and mirative futures and conditionals: An evidential gradable modal proposal. Lingua151(B). 197–215. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  32. Rodríguez Rosique, Susana
    2019El futuro en español: Tiempo, conocimiento, interacción. Berlin: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b15234
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b15234 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rosemeyer, Malte
    2017 La historia de las perífrasis deber / deber de + INF: Variación, norma y géneros textuales. In Mar Garachana (ed.), La gramática en la diacronía: La evolución de las perífrasis verbales modales en español, 147–195. Madrid: Iberoamericana. 10.31819/9783954877362‑005
    https://doi.org/10.31819/9783954877362-005 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2019 Brazilian Portuguese in-situ wh-interrogatives between rhetoric and change. Glossa4(1). 1–29. 10.5334/gjgl.900
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.900 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sedano, Mercedes
    2006 Importancia de los datos cuantitativos en el estudio de las expresiones de futuro. Revista Signos39. 283–296. 10.4067/S0718‑09342006000200007
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342006000200007 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schwenter, Scott A.
    1999 Evidentiality in Spanish morphosyntax: A reanalysis of dequeísmo. In María J. Serrano (ed.), Estudios de variación sintáctica, 65–87. Madrid: Iberoamericana.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & ‎Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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