Well said. Deductively, predictively, yes.Stephen Jones wrote:You are treading dangerous ground talking about the future perfect on this forum.
Most people will argue that there is no such thing as a future tense in English. If you're teaching in Madrid you can tell your students that 'will + have -ed' normally works the same as the future perfect in Spanish, but you are making the English verb system too complicated if you pretend that two modals, 'will' and 'would' work entirely differently from all the others.
'Will have' here is being used predictively. As such there is no reason why it could not be used with 'yesterday', though to some it may sound a little odd. The only way of telling if it is grammaticallh correct is to check the corpus.
will have finished + yesterday
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Open Minded
I've spent the last 25 years of my life learning English by teaching it and I don't pretend to ever become an expert but I strive every day to be a better teacher. Although this use of the future perfect tense will be of no use to my students I'm glad that I have stumbled upon it in this forum. Just because something doesn't sound right doesn't mean that it's incorrect.
Order of the boot
Alexander Chancellor
Saturday December 13, 2003
Order of the boot
Alexander Chancellor
Saturday December 13, 2003
The Guardian wrote: Mick Jagger had dithered about when to get his knighthood from the Queen. All being well, he will have done it yesterday, but only after a savage attack on him by his musical partner, Keith Richards, for joining the Establishment and betraying the image of delinquency cultivated by the Rolling Stones.
Re: Open Minded
Many thanks for such a well considered reply and the quote provided. One thing, if your students wanted to read and understand The Guardian, they might just need that construction. Still, probably better to wait until they ask about such.MyProfe wrote:I've spent the last 25 years of my life learning English by teaching it and I don't pretend to ever become an expert but I strive every day to be a better teacher. Although this use of the future perfect tense will be of no use to my students I'm glad that I have stumbled upon it in this forum. Just because something doesn't sound right doesn't mean that it's incorrect.
Many thanks
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
will have
I wouldn't want to disagree with any of this but Stephen says "will have" is a predicting form whereas in the other examples we have only "will". It seems to me that the "have" is not part of the prediction, even though this does leave the odd "have done it yesterday".
Re: will have
woodcutter wrote:I wouldn't want to disagree with any of this but Stephen says "will have" is a predicting form whereas in the other examples we have only "will". It seems to me that the "have" is not part of the prediction, even though this does leave the odd "have done it yesterday".
If they get stuck on the word "prediction" they'll always have a problem. The "will" (modal) part of "will have" is what shows prediction when used for the future. "Prediction" is just that, a looking forward. But "will" has many uses and two which are pertinent to our discussion are "supposition" and "deduction". Those two words are neutral in time references until placed in context. All modal auxiliries show the stance of the speaker at the moment of speaking. They do not carry time reference in themselves until placed in context.
At first glance I'd say that the modality conferred by "will" in clauses such as "they'll be there by now" or "he'll have done it yesterday" is one that expresses certainty.
One might compare these clauses to "they should be there by now" and "he should have done it yesterday" to see the how the level of conviction confered by "will" compares to one with a significantly tempered certainty modality.
One might compare these clauses to "they should be there by now" and "he should have done it yesterday" to see the how the level of conviction confered by "will" compares to one with a significantly tempered certainty modality.
prawn wrote:At first glance I'd say that the modality conferred by "will" in clauses such as "they'll be there by now" or "he'll have done it yesterday" is one that expresses certainty.
One might compare these clauses to "they should be there by now" and "he should have done it yesterday" to see the how the level of conviction confered by "will" compares to one with a significantly tempered certainty modality.
Of course that's it. Thanks.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Ah, but let's be careful here not to leave readers with a mistaken impression. While it seems right that...
"They will be there by now."
...appears to convey that the speaker feels more sure of himself as compared to...
"They should be there by now."
...let's take pains to point out that neither speaker is certain of the assertion. If they were, they would simply say...
"They are there now."
Modals are opinions, as has been said here. The speaker is representing his statement as an opinion and not a fact, when he chooses a verb form containing a modal auxiliary.
Larry Latham
"They will be there by now."
...appears to convey that the speaker feels more sure of himself as compared to...
"They should be there by now."
...let's take pains to point out that neither speaker is certain of the assertion. If they were, they would simply say...
"They are there now."
Modals are opinions, as has been said here. The speaker is representing his statement as an opinion and not a fact, when he chooses a verb form containing a modal auxiliary.
Larry Latham
Larry,
Pardon my bluntness, but you are mistaken. The concepts of "fact" and "opinion" have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The use of Modal Finites is not concerned with the expression of "opinion" and Modality generally is primarily concerned with the adjustment of "Stand". Tense Finites only express Positive or Negative Polarity (he ate an apple/he didn't eat an apple). Modal Finites allow the language user to take a stand somewhere in between the two absolutes with respect to factors such as certainty (eg. he will have eaten an apple), probability (eg. he might have eaten an apple), obligation (eg. he should have eaten an apple), permission (eg. he may eat an apple) and so on.
In English, when someone wants to make it clear that they are expressing an opinion (whether or not they "really" are being completely immaterial), they use what is called a Grammatical Metaphor. These are Projecting Clauses such as "I think" and "I suppose".
Grammatical Metaphors are included in the Mood Block along with Modal Finites (eg. may, might, would, could, should, have to etc) and Modal Adjuncts, which allow adjustment of stand with respect to factors such as probability (eg. perhaps probably, sometimes) and frequency (never, sometimes,always etc).
Pardon my bluntness, but you are mistaken. The concepts of "fact" and "opinion" have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The use of Modal Finites is not concerned with the expression of "opinion" and Modality generally is primarily concerned with the adjustment of "Stand". Tense Finites only express Positive or Negative Polarity (he ate an apple/he didn't eat an apple). Modal Finites allow the language user to take a stand somewhere in between the two absolutes with respect to factors such as certainty (eg. he will have eaten an apple), probability (eg. he might have eaten an apple), obligation (eg. he should have eaten an apple), permission (eg. he may eat an apple) and so on.
In English, when someone wants to make it clear that they are expressing an opinion (whether or not they "really" are being completely immaterial), they use what is called a Grammatical Metaphor. These are Projecting Clauses such as "I think" and "I suppose".
Grammatical Metaphors are included in the Mood Block along with Modal Finites (eg. may, might, would, could, should, have to etc) and Modal Adjuncts, which allow adjustment of stand with respect to factors such as probability (eg. perhaps probably, sometimes) and frequency (never, sometimes,always etc).
Larry,
Pardon my bluntness, but you are mistaken. The concepts of "fact" and "opinion" have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The use of Modal Finites is not concerned with the expression of "opinion" and Modality generally is primarily concerned with the adjustment of "Stand". Tense Finites only express Positive or Negative Polarity (he ate an apple/he didn't eat an apple). Modal Finites allow the language user to take a stand somewhere in between the two absolutes with respect to factors such as certainty (eg. he will have eaten an apple), probability (eg. he might have eaten an apple), obligation (eg. he should have eaten an apple), permission (eg. he may eat an apple) and so on.
In English, when someone wants to make it clear that they are expressing an opinion (whether or not they "really" are being completely immaterial), they use what is called a Grammatical Metaphor. These are Projecting Clauses such as "I think" (I think he ate an apple) and "I suppose" (I suppose he ate an apple).
Grammatical Metaphors are included in the Mood Block along with Modal Finites (eg. may, might, would, could, should, have to etc) and Modal Adjuncts, which allow adjustment of stand with respect to factors such as probability (eg. perhaps probably) and frequency (never, sometimes,always etc).
Pardon my bluntness, but you are mistaken. The concepts of "fact" and "opinion" have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The use of Modal Finites is not concerned with the expression of "opinion" and Modality generally is primarily concerned with the adjustment of "Stand". Tense Finites only express Positive or Negative Polarity (he ate an apple/he didn't eat an apple). Modal Finites allow the language user to take a stand somewhere in between the two absolutes with respect to factors such as certainty (eg. he will have eaten an apple), probability (eg. he might have eaten an apple), obligation (eg. he should have eaten an apple), permission (eg. he may eat an apple) and so on.
In English, when someone wants to make it clear that they are expressing an opinion (whether or not they "really" are being completely immaterial), they use what is called a Grammatical Metaphor. These are Projecting Clauses such as "I think" (I think he ate an apple) and "I suppose" (I suppose he ate an apple).
Grammatical Metaphors are included in the Mood Block along with Modal Finites (eg. may, might, would, could, should, have to etc) and Modal Adjuncts, which allow adjustment of stand with respect to factors such as probability (eg. perhaps probably) and frequency (never, sometimes,always etc).
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Okay, prawn. You've got my attention. And you may have something to teach me. You certainly write as though you know what you're talking about, but I'd kind of like to know more about who you are. I'll also be blunt, and hope you'll pardon me too. I don't fully understand everything that you write, and I find myself wondering whether I should take you seriously. You are contradicting a position I feel pretty sure about, and that tends to get my back up a bit, but like I said, you may have something to teach me. If so, then I would be very grateful for the education. I'm always looking to improve my understanding of the language. So far, I only half understand what you seem to be saying here in this forum, but your arguments have a good look.prawn insistently wrote:Larry,
Pardon my bluntness, but you are mistaken. The concepts of "fact" and "opinion" have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
If, however, this is shaping up to be merely, as Stephen has suggested, a pissing contest between a Michael Lewis booster and a Halliday devotee, then I have better things to do.
Larry Latham
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Hey, Prawn, are you going to recommend anything for us to read regarding SFL (so that we can decide for ourslelves how useful it would be - or otherwise - to impose its terminology onto language we are attempting to analyze)?
I have a few books on SF grammar back in the UK that I hope to read when I go back (someone sold them to me when they couldn't complete a Master's) - Halliday's "Introduction" (2nd edition), Bloor and Bloor's introduction to Halliday's introduction (!) by the same publisher (Edward Arnold), and Downing and Locke's "A University Course in English Grammar, 2nd edition" (Routledge).
I personally found it difficult to get into the Halliday - it wasn't particularly involving or well-written, and was perhaps assuming a little too much (hence, the market for the Bloor and Bloor, which can be dipped into more readily, and perhaps even finished in a couple of sittings!). I didn't look at the Downing and Locke much at all, but it would seem quite useful as a reference grammar and not just an introductory coursebook, to be used in conjunction with our Quirks, Bibers etc.
Anyway, any recommendations you could make would be appreciated, because I am thinking of buying Geoff Thompson's "Introducing Functional Grammar, 2nd edition" here in Japan, in preference to the new 3rd edition of Halliday's introduction (co-written with Christian Mathiessen), especially since it claims to closely follow the Halliday and Mathiessen. The Thompson looks more involving and well-written (certainly less intimidating!), with reasonably clear explanations, and I would trust what he says, because he wrote the COBUILD guide to reporting.
I have a few books on SF grammar back in the UK that I hope to read when I go back (someone sold them to me when they couldn't complete a Master's) - Halliday's "Introduction" (2nd edition), Bloor and Bloor's introduction to Halliday's introduction (!) by the same publisher (Edward Arnold), and Downing and Locke's "A University Course in English Grammar, 2nd edition" (Routledge).
I personally found it difficult to get into the Halliday - it wasn't particularly involving or well-written, and was perhaps assuming a little too much (hence, the market for the Bloor and Bloor, which can be dipped into more readily, and perhaps even finished in a couple of sittings!). I didn't look at the Downing and Locke much at all, but it would seem quite useful as a reference grammar and not just an introductory coursebook, to be used in conjunction with our Quirks, Bibers etc.
Anyway, any recommendations you could make would be appreciated, because I am thinking of buying Geoff Thompson's "Introducing Functional Grammar, 2nd edition" here in Japan, in preference to the new 3rd edition of Halliday's introduction (co-written with Christian Mathiessen), especially since it claims to closely follow the Halliday and Mathiessen. The Thompson looks more involving and well-written (certainly less intimidating!), with reasonably clear explanations, and I would trust what he says, because he wrote the COBUILD guide to reporting.
Larry,
I'm not interested in any pissing contests, and I would never feel the urge to deride your particular philosphical views of linguistics were they not to coincide with mine. However I feel very confident that I do know what I am talking about, and this not only because I have spent some time and energy in coming to what I perhaps immodestly believe to be a solid understanding of the ideas underpinning SFL, but also because I apply these in some way in the classroom on a daily basis and so get to see first hand the effect that the approach has on students.
Having been through the linguistic mill to some extent so to speak, I can see SFL is but a natural progression from the traditional consituent grammars, and to ignore it or deride it (as some seem intent on doing) having made no effort to understand it is not only to deprive oneself of an elegant tool for linguistic analysis and second language pedagogy (that is a fact), but also to ignore the glaring truth of the matter linguistically speaking, if I may be so bold (and that is most definitely an opinion) .
One might describe it as the quantum theory for linguistics (without the theoretical complexities); the quanta being the different functional units which become illuminated in the analysis of each of the grammatical phases of text. Like anything new - such as quantum theory, email or tying your shoelaces - it takes a little while for one to get the hang of it, but - like each of those things (choose the ones that you need of course ) - once you do get the hang of it, it seems so obvious that you wonder what all the fuss was about.
I'd be quite happy to try to more fully elucidate for you any point that I have tried to make on this forum, or any questions regarding SFL analysis that you might have, and also to consider your arguments against anything I say.
Duncan,
I could recommend one reference with regards to SFL that seems not to have been mentioned here, and that is Using Functional Grammar: An Explorer's Guide (Butt et al) printed by the National Centre For English Language Teaching Research at Macquarie University, Sydney Australia. I think it is generally quite well written and quite accessible, and would give you more than enough to get started.
Stephen Jones,
re. "Prawn of course worships at ... Larry of course worships at ..."
When people start to get cynical and abusive ( I regard that as abuse - i feel no compulsion to worship anyone or anything and never have) in the course of an academic discussion one always starts to get the far-from-sneaking suspicion that they have not understood the issue. Mate, if you want to play that game we can go back over to the other discussion boards and see who's got the biggest car. I'm not going to waste time on it here. Come up with valid arguments against anything I say and I will respond with a counter argument if I think you are wrong. On the other hand if I cannot find fault with your argument I will reconsider my own position. That's the way we make progress. Not with juvenile sniping which, I assure you, I feel more than confident I would be able to match you on.
Furthermore, even though I don't "worship" Halliday, I do have great respect for him and those of the so-called Hallidayan school and its predecessors and successors for developing a solid, clear and pedagogically useful linguistic philosophy that is much more suited to my tastes than the mud and hogwash of the plethora of mystics, psychologists and squinting pedants whose "theories" are but tumbleweeds blowing through the field of linguistics, a place in which they can take no root(or have they always been there? the science of chemistry developed from alchemy after all).
Why shouldn't have I included the terminology in my response? Things generally go better with a name. You'll notice I gave quite clear examples for each, so if you're not happy with the terms I use - make your own. The point is not in the label you apply to something, but the nature of the concept itself. Obviously having a common terminology facilitates discussion of the concepts involved in any field, but as long as two people can agree, for example, that the wheel exists, are in agreement with regards to its form and the particular functions it might serve, then they can each be confident -without having to be around to continually check and make sure - that the wheels each produces for others - and the way in which those wheels are used by others - will be easily recognised by all. Furthermore, they can be confident that developments in form or methodologies by one might also be easily understood by and applied by the other. Only a fool would claim that a disagreement over something as minor as terminology might be used to contest the fundamental validity of the ideas or even the existence of the referent.
I'm quite happy with the Hallidayan terminology(and it is as far as I know from Halliday) that I have used here, and see no need to change and so be at odds with those engaged with SFL, of which there are many throughout the world. Having said that there are some Hallidayan SFL terms and one or two analytical points that I am not entirely happy with or disagree with, and I have modified these to accord to my needs (my needs being the clarity of my own and my students' understanding), but this neccesity for what I perceive as fairly minor alterations has never shaken my confidence in the more general validity of the philosphical foundations upon which SFL has developed. In fact before I chanced upon SFL as a field, the seeds of it were already developing in my mind...as happens also for many others. For example, look back up this thread and you'll see that someone else here has made some comments with respect to the advisability of relying upon a word by word consituent analysis of written English as the be all and end all for linguistic analysis and linguistic pedagogy of English. In that type of questioning lies the beginning of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Luckily there have been many before us to whom the same thoughts have occurred and so there is now a solid theoretical structure with a rich and useful terminology from which those interested can develop their methods and ideas.
I'm not interested in any pissing contests, and I would never feel the urge to deride your particular philosphical views of linguistics were they not to coincide with mine. However I feel very confident that I do know what I am talking about, and this not only because I have spent some time and energy in coming to what I perhaps immodestly believe to be a solid understanding of the ideas underpinning SFL, but also because I apply these in some way in the classroom on a daily basis and so get to see first hand the effect that the approach has on students.
Having been through the linguistic mill to some extent so to speak, I can see SFL is but a natural progression from the traditional consituent grammars, and to ignore it or deride it (as some seem intent on doing) having made no effort to understand it is not only to deprive oneself of an elegant tool for linguistic analysis and second language pedagogy (that is a fact), but also to ignore the glaring truth of the matter linguistically speaking, if I may be so bold (and that is most definitely an opinion) .
One might describe it as the quantum theory for linguistics (without the theoretical complexities); the quanta being the different functional units which become illuminated in the analysis of each of the grammatical phases of text. Like anything new - such as quantum theory, email or tying your shoelaces - it takes a little while for one to get the hang of it, but - like each of those things (choose the ones that you need of course ) - once you do get the hang of it, it seems so obvious that you wonder what all the fuss was about.
I'd be quite happy to try to more fully elucidate for you any point that I have tried to make on this forum, or any questions regarding SFL analysis that you might have, and also to consider your arguments against anything I say.
Duncan,
I could recommend one reference with regards to SFL that seems not to have been mentioned here, and that is Using Functional Grammar: An Explorer's Guide (Butt et al) printed by the National Centre For English Language Teaching Research at Macquarie University, Sydney Australia. I think it is generally quite well written and quite accessible, and would give you more than enough to get started.
Stephen Jones,
re. "Prawn of course worships at ... Larry of course worships at ..."
When people start to get cynical and abusive ( I regard that as abuse - i feel no compulsion to worship anyone or anything and never have) in the course of an academic discussion one always starts to get the far-from-sneaking suspicion that they have not understood the issue. Mate, if you want to play that game we can go back over to the other discussion boards and see who's got the biggest car. I'm not going to waste time on it here. Come up with valid arguments against anything I say and I will respond with a counter argument if I think you are wrong. On the other hand if I cannot find fault with your argument I will reconsider my own position. That's the way we make progress. Not with juvenile sniping which, I assure you, I feel more than confident I would be able to match you on.
Furthermore, even though I don't "worship" Halliday, I do have great respect for him and those of the so-called Hallidayan school and its predecessors and successors for developing a solid, clear and pedagogically useful linguistic philosophy that is much more suited to my tastes than the mud and hogwash of the plethora of mystics, psychologists and squinting pedants whose "theories" are but tumbleweeds blowing through the field of linguistics, a place in which they can take no root(or have they always been there? the science of chemistry developed from alchemy after all).
Why shouldn't have I included the terminology in my response? Things generally go better with a name. You'll notice I gave quite clear examples for each, so if you're not happy with the terms I use - make your own. The point is not in the label you apply to something, but the nature of the concept itself. Obviously having a common terminology facilitates discussion of the concepts involved in any field, but as long as two people can agree, for example, that the wheel exists, are in agreement with regards to its form and the particular functions it might serve, then they can each be confident -without having to be around to continually check and make sure - that the wheels each produces for others - and the way in which those wheels are used by others - will be easily recognised by all. Furthermore, they can be confident that developments in form or methodologies by one might also be easily understood by and applied by the other. Only a fool would claim that a disagreement over something as minor as terminology might be used to contest the fundamental validity of the ideas or even the existence of the referent.
I'm quite happy with the Hallidayan terminology(and it is as far as I know from Halliday) that I have used here, and see no need to change and so be at odds with those engaged with SFL, of which there are many throughout the world. Having said that there are some Hallidayan SFL terms and one or two analytical points that I am not entirely happy with or disagree with, and I have modified these to accord to my needs (my needs being the clarity of my own and my students' understanding), but this neccesity for what I perceive as fairly minor alterations has never shaken my confidence in the more general validity of the philosphical foundations upon which SFL has developed. In fact before I chanced upon SFL as a field, the seeds of it were already developing in my mind...as happens also for many others. For example, look back up this thread and you'll see that someone else here has made some comments with respect to the advisability of relying upon a word by word consituent analysis of written English as the be all and end all for linguistic analysis and linguistic pedagogy of English. In that type of questioning lies the beginning of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Luckily there have been many before us to whom the same thoughts have occurred and so there is now a solid theoretical structure with a rich and useful terminology from which those interested can develop their methods and ideas.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
----"hat is much more suited to my tastes than the mud and hogwash of the plethora of mystics, psychologists and squinting pedants whose "theories" are but tumbleweeds blowing through the field of linguistics, a place in which they can take no root(or have they always been there? the science of chemistry developed from alchemy after all). "-----
Nice to see you are still as open-minded as ever.
Paul Valéry once said you couldn't play chess according to the rules of draughts and that is what is happening with you and Larry in this thread.
Your school of grammatical analysis uses the word 'stand' for modality, whereas Larry's uses the word 'opinion'. If you have to try and find one phrase to describe all modal verbs (and I can think of absolutely no reason why you should) then you are free to chose whichever fits in best with the rest of your system.
Where you go completely wrong is when you forget that the terminology you use is simply a label and claim that it has some objective reality.
As far as the common or garden meaning of 'opinion' is concerned, Larry is quite right on this one. The fact that your system reserves the use of the word 'opinion' for something else is neither here nor there.
Nice to see you are still as open-minded as ever.
Paul Valéry once said you couldn't play chess according to the rules of draughts and that is what is happening with you and Larry in this thread.
Your school of grammatical analysis uses the word 'stand' for modality, whereas Larry's uses the word 'opinion'. If you have to try and find one phrase to describe all modal verbs (and I can think of absolutely no reason why you should) then you are free to chose whichever fits in best with the rest of your system.
Where you go completely wrong is when you forget that the terminology you use is simply a label and claim that it has some objective reality.
As far as the common or garden meaning of 'opinion' is concerned, Larry is quite right on this one. The fact that your system reserves the use of the word 'opinion' for something else is neither here nor there.