1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Second Language Studies
  4. Volume 8, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Previous research has given much attention to how native speakers of English and, to a lesser extent, speakers of World Englishes, choose between and to talk about the future. There is, however, a lack of research investigating how learners of English as a Foreign Language choose between these future markers at different proficiency levels. We collected 3,616 instances of and from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus, which consists of spoken language from low-intermediate to advanced learners of English from various mother tongue backgrounds. These future marker observations were annotated for constraints known to probabilistically influence the choice of variant and then analyzed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Results show that learners are sensitive to more constraints than native speakers, suggesting that the forms serve more distinct functions. As learners become more proficient, they consider fewer constraints and thereby better approximate native speakers.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00030.dub
2024-10-17
2025-06-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00030.dub
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K.
    (2000) Chapter Seven: Past, Present, and Future. Language Learning, 50(s1), 409–437. 10.1111/0023‑8333.50.s1.9
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.50.s1.9 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2002) A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in future expression. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 189–198. 10.1017/S0272263102002036
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002036 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2005) The Future of Desire: Lexical Futures and Modality in L2 English Future Expression. Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, 1–12. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergs, A.
    (2010) Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics, 14(2), 217–238. 10.1017/S1360674310000067
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000067 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohmann, A.
    (2024) Future-time reference in world Englishes. World Englishes, 43(1), 2–22. 10.1111/weng.12634
     https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12634 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brisard, F.
    (2001) Be going to: An exercise in grounding. Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 251–285. 10.1017/S0022226701008866
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226701008866 [Google Scholar]
  9. Burton, G.
    (2023) Grammar in ELT and ELT Materials: Evaluating its History and Current Practice. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Clyde, L., & Parker, R.
    (2015) Pass Trinity Now 5–6 and ISE I. Black Cat.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Clyde, L., & West, S.
    (2015) Pass Trinity Now 7–8 and ISE II. Black Cat.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Cochrane, S.
    (2015) Pass Trinity Now 3–4 and ISE Foundation. Black Cat.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Denis, D., & Tagliamonte, S. A.
    (2018) The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics, 22(3), 403–430. 10.1017/S1360674316000551
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000551 [Google Scholar]
  15. Deshors, S. C., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2014) A Case for the Multifactorial Assessment of Learner Language: The Uses of May and Can in French-English Interlanguage. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy (Vols.11–Book, Section, pp.179–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.07des
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.07des [Google Scholar]
  16. Dubois, T., Grafmiller, J., Paquot, M., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2023a) Animacy effects in the English genitive alternation: Comparing native speakers and EFL learner judgments with corpus data. Language and Cognition. 10.1017/langcog.2023.51
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2023.51 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dubois, T., Paquot, M., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2023b) Alternation phenomena and language proficiency: The genitive alternation in the spoken language of EFL learners. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(3), 427–450. 10.1515/cllt‑2021‑0078
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2021-0078 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006) Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Review, 191, 100–121. 10.1075/aila.19.08ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S.
    (2019) Cognitive approaches to Second Language Acquisition. InJ. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning (pp.41–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108333603.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R.
    (1999) Item versus system learning: Explaining free variation. Applied Linguistics, 20(4), 460–480. 10.1093/applin/20.4.460
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.4.460 [Google Scholar]
  21. Engel, A.
    (2022) The register-specificity of probabilistic grammars in English and Dutch — Combining corpus analysis and experimentation. KU Leuven, Leuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Engel, A., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2023) Variable grammars are variable across registers: Future temporal reference in English. Language Variation and Change, 34(3), 355–378. 10.1017/S0954394522000163
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394522000163 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fehringer, C., & Corrigan, K. P.
    (2015) The rise of the going to future in Tyneside English: Evidence for further grammaticalisation. English World-Wide, 36(2), 198–227. 10.1075/eww.36.2.03feh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.36.2.03feh [Google Scholar]
  24. Fox, J.
    (2003) Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 81, 1–27. 10.18637/jss.v008.i15
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v008.i15 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T.
    (2019) The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Development, description and application. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(2), 126–158.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gardner, M. H.
    (2017) Grammatical variation and change in industrial Cape Breton. University of Toronto, Toronto.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gelman, A.
    (2008) Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine, 27(15), 2865–2873. 10.1002/sim.3107
     https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3107 [Google Scholar]
  28. Götz, S., Wolk, C., & Jäschke, K.
    (2022) A contrastive interlanguage analysis across L1s, task types and learning context variables: Contextualizing fluency in advanced spoken learner language. InA. Leńko-Szymańska & S. Götz (Eds.), Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Learner Corpus Research (pp.273–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/scl.104.11got
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.104.11got [Google Scholar]
  29. Gries, S. Th.
    (2021) Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110718256
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718256 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gries, S. Th.
    (2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. 10.3366/cor.2015.0068
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gries, S. Th.
    (2018) On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies, 1(2), 276–308. 10.1075/jsls.00005.gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00005.gri [Google Scholar]
  32. Gries, S. T.
    (2022) What do (most of) our dispersion measures measure (most)? Dispersion?Journal of Second Language Studies, 5(2), 171–205. 10.1075/jsls.21029.gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21029.gri [Google Scholar]
  33. Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C.
    (2015) Statistical Measures for Usage-Based Linguistics. Language Learning, 65(S1), 228–255. 10.1111/lang.12119
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  35. Hansen, T.
    (2015) Pass Trinity Now 9–10. Black Cat.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S.
    (2000) Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). New York (N.Y.): Wiley. 10.1002/0471722146
     https://doi.org/10.1002/0471722146 [Google Scholar]
  37. Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  38. Humphries, J.
    (2017a) Ready for Trinity GESE Grades 3–4 and ISE Foundation. ELI Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2017b) Ready for Trinity GESE Grades 5–6 and ISE I. ELI Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Jackson, C. N.
    (2018) Second language structural priming: A critical review and directions for future research. Second Language Research, 34(4), 539–552. 10.1177/0267658317746207
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317746207 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jäschke, K., & Plag, I.
    (2016) The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 485–521. 10.1017/S0272263115000261
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000261 [Google Scholar]
  42. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.
    (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. 10.2307/2529310
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar]
  43. Levin, B.
    (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Levshina, N.
    (2015). How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  45. MacDonald, M. C.
    (2013) How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 41(Article 226), 1–16. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mishan, F.
    (2022) The Global ELT coursebook: A case of Cinderella’s slipper?Language Teaching, 55(4), 490–505. 10.1017/S0261444820000646
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000646 [Google Scholar]
  47. Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2012) Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302–331. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00626.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00626.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Murphy, R.
    (2019) English Grammar in Use. A self-study reference and practice book for intermediate learners of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Nesselhauf, N.
    (2010) The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of forms or change in discourse?English Language & Linguistics, 14(2), 163–186. 10.1017/S1360674310000043
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000043 [Google Scholar]
  50. Oxenden, C., & Latham-Koenig, C.
    (2006) New English File: Advanced Student’s book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Paquot, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2019) Particle placement alternation in EFL learner vs. L1 speech: Assessing the similarity of probabilistic grammars. InA. Abel, A. Glaznieks, V. Lyding, & L. Nicolas (Eds.), Widening the Scope of Learner Corpus Research. Selected Papers from the Fourth Learner Corpus Research Conference (pp.71–92). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Poplack, S., & Tagliamonte, S.
    (2000) The grammaticization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change, 11(3), 315–342. 10.1017/S0954394599113048
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394599113048 [Google Scholar]
  53. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2022) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttps://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Redstone, C., & Cunningham, G.
    (2005a) Face2face elementary. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2005b) Face2face intermediate. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. (2005c) Face2face pre-intermediate. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (2012) Face2face upper-intermediate (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Rohdenburg, G.
    (1996) Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  60. Romberg, A. R., & Saffran, J. R.
    (2010) Statistical learning and language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 1(6), 906–914. 10.1002/wcs.78
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.78 [Google Scholar]
  61. Schneider, A.
    (2016) The variation of will vs. Be going to: Future time marking in spoken Ghanaian English. InO. Timofeeva, A.-C. Gardner, A. Honkapohja, & S. Chevalier (Eds.), New approaches to English linguistics: Building bridges (pp.141–173). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/slcs.177.06sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.177.06sch [Google Scholar]
  62. Shin, N. L.
    (2014) Grammatical complexification in Spanish in New York: 3sg pronoun expression and verbal ambiguity. Language Variation and Change, 26(3), 303–330. 10.1017/S095439451400012X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439451400012X [Google Scholar]
  63. Soars, L., & Soars, J.
    (2005) Headway pre-intermediate (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. (2009a) Headway advanced (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (2009b) Headway beginner (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. (2009c) Headway intermediate (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. (2019) Headway upper-intermediate (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Swan, M.
    (2005) Practical English Usage (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2003) Be Going to Versus Will/Shall: Does Syntax Matter?Journal of English Linguistics, 31(4), 295–323. 10.1177/0075424203257830
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424203257830 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tagliamonte, S. A., Durham, M., & Smith, J.
    (2014) Grammaticalization at an early stage: Future be going to in conservative British dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 18(1), 75–108. 10.1017/S1360674313000282
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674313000282 [Google Scholar]
  71. Tamminga, M., MacKenzie, L., & Embick, D.
    (2016) The dynamics of variation in individuals. Linguistic Variation, 16(2), 300–336. 10.1075/lv.16.2.06tam
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.16.2.06tam [Google Scholar]
  72. Tooley, K. M., & Bock, K.
    (2014) On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension. Cognition, 132(2), 101–136. 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  73. Torres-Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A.
    (2009) The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse. Language, 85(2), 321–354.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang, J., & Xu, C.
    (2015) Cue Competition between Animacy and Word Order: Acquisition of Chinese Notional Passives by L2 Learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 51, 213–224. 10.4236/ojml.2015.52017
     https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2015.52017 [Google Scholar]
  75. Winter, T., & Le Foll, E.
    (2022) Testing the pedagogical norm: Comparing if-conditionals in EFL textbooks, learner writing and English outside the classroom. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 8(1), 31–66. 10.1075/ijlcr.20021.win
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20021.win [Google Scholar]
  76. Wulff, S.
    (2016) A Friendly Conspiracy of Input, L1, and Processing Demands: That-variation in the Language of German and Spanish Learners of English. InA. Tyler, L. Ortega, H. I. Park, & M. Uno (Eds.), The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Wulff, S., Gries, S. Th., & Lester, N.
    (2018) Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. InA. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp.99–120). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110572186‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110572186-004 [Google Scholar]
  78. Wulff, S., Lester, N., & Martinez-Garcia, M. T.
    (2014) That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition, 6(2), 271–299. 10.1017/langcog.2014.5
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.5 [Google Scholar]
  79. Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M.
    (2009) Mixed effects modelling for nested data. InA. F. Zuur, E. N. Ieno, N. Walker, A. A. Saveliev, & G. M. Smith (Eds.), Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R (pp.101–142). New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑87458‑6_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6_5 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00030.dub
Loading
Future-time reference in spoken EFL
Journal of Second Language Studies 8, 89 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00030.dub
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00030.dub
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.00030.dub
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): be going to; EFL; future marker alternation; proficiency; SLA; will

Most Cited

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