Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:42:38.926Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: redistribution of forms or change in discourse?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2010

NADJA NESSELHAUF
NADJA NESSELHAUF*
Affiliation:
Anglistisches Seminar, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Kettengasse 12, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany, Nadja.Nesselhauf@urz.uni-heidelberg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides the first comprehensive analysis of the development of the future time expressions will, ’ll, shall, be going to, progressive with future time reference, and be to in the course of the late modern period. The article focuses on possible reasons for the considerable changes that have taken place in the past few centuries. To what degree can the changes be described as certain forms having been (partially) replaced by others? To what degree have general or register-specific changes in discourse affected the use of future time expressions? These questions are investigated on the basis of the British part of ARCHER (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers).

The analysis reveals that it is a complex interaction of both types of processes that is responsible for the recent evolution of future time expressions. Redistribution processes turn out to be highly complex in themselves, going far beyond the frequently described replacement of shall by will and probably proceeding in chains. With respect to discourse change, one result is an unexpected overall decrease in the tendency of writers (and speakers) to refer to their own plans, intentions, etc. Partly responsible for this development is a discourse change in science writing, where the author has increasingly disappeared from the text, so that text structure is much less frequently expressed in terms of the author's intention. A further register-specific discourse change that the investigation brings to light is a development in diaries from an earlier restriction to reporting past events to the expression of more personal views, including hopes and fears for the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 2: Future time reference in English , July 2010 , pp. 163 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

References

Atkinson, Dwight. 1996. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society 25, 333–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 2005. Expressions of future in present-day English: A corpus-based approach. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Modal use across registers and time. In Curzan, Anne & Emmons, Kimberly (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language II: Unfolding conversations, 189–216. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 253–75. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
CIDE = Cambridge International Dictionary of English. 1995. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danchev, Andrei, Pavlova, A., Nalchadjan, M. & Zlatareva, O.. 1965. The construction going to + inf. in Modern English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 13, 375–86.Google Scholar
Danchev, Andrei & Kytö, Merja. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 58–77. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. IV: 1776–1997, 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1925. The periphrastic future with shall and will in Modern English. Publications of the Modern Language Association 40 (4), 963–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1999. English in nineteenth-century England: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2003. Shall and will in contemporary English: A comparison with past uses. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred & Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 267–300. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina, Dury, Richard & Facchinetti, Roberta. 2002. Variation in central modals: A repertoire of forms and type of usage in Middle English and Early Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1991. Variation and diachrony, with Early American English in focus. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 223–40. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb. 3rd edition. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997. The spread of the going-to-future in written English: A corpus-based investigation into language change in progress. In Hickey, Raymond & Puppel, Stanislaw (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling, 1537–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In Lindquist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalisation in English, 121–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation, and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2006. The decline of be to and the rise of be going to in Late Modern English: Connection or coincidence? In Houswitschka, Christoph, Knappe, Gabriele & Müller, Anja (eds.), Anglistentag 2005 Bamberg. Proceedings, 515–29. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2007. The spread of the progressive and its ‘future’ use. English Language and Linguistics 11 (1), 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. In prep. Language change and discourse change: Future time expressions in Late Modern English.Google Scholar
Núñez Pertejo, Paloma. 1999. Be going to + infinitive: origin and development: Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica 71 (2), 135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OALD = Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez, Aveline. 1990. Time in motion: Grammaticalisation of the be going to construction in English. La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics 3, 49–64.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas. 2005. A corpus-based investigation of recent change in the use of the progressive in British English. PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar