Interesting use of "Future Perfect Tense" form

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:55 am

That is true, since you don't post that way all the time. However, you can post small and use the browser to make the print larger.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:09 am

Lorikeet wrote:That is true, since you don't post that way all the time. However, you can post small and use the browser to make the print larger.

Hey, why not ask Dave to cancel the font options above then?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:29 am

[Larry,] I am still awaiting your explanation of how your "fundamental" meaning of 'will' ties up with the examples I gave.

Larry, somehow I have the sneaking suspicion that you are looking for other places to post so as to avoid explaining how your description of the fundamental nature of will fits in with the examples I gave in the other thread. Please prove me wrong

OK Stephen. I had been thinking that your challenge to me was just another smokescreen. You can do this yourself, if you’d bother to take the trouble, but you seem to want to suggest that it cannot be done. So I guess I’ll have to indulge you.

This can be done more simply, and I ordinarily would. But I really don’t want to get into another round of nitpicking. This whole thing has degenerated into more or less a pissing contest, and frankly, I’m tired of it. So, I’ll try, here, to cover all the bases I can think of, at least at the moment.

I (and others here, most notably lolwhites) maintain that the fundamental meaning (if you wish, primary meaning or even main meaning—these probably are not the best terminology, but that does not invalidate the intended point) of will, when used as a modal auxiliary, is to express a momentary judgment connecting what is known by the user about an event at the moment of use, with the event itself. The user believes the event is true (given his aforementioned knowledge), but does not believe he can represent it as fact, for some particular reason. The particular reason in any given use depends on the exact situation…on the context, especially the pragmatic context. There could be all kinds of reasons why the user does not believe he can represent the event as factual. For instance, it might be that the event itself has not yet occurred (it’s expected in future time), and so because events in future time cannot be seen as a complete, factual whole, the representation using will is appropriate, and the fundamental meaning stands. Perhaps this is the most common use, but please note that the primary semantic characteristic of will--even in this use-- is not future time. That is only its particular pragmatic interpretation in a particular use. It might also be that the event is occurring at the moment of speaking, and so is not in future time, but because the event is physically removed from the speaker and listener at the time of the conversation, the user cannot be sure the actual event is a fact even though he believes it is true. Again, will is appropriate, and the fundamental meaning stands. But, if the user is on the telephone with someone physically present at the event who is reporting to him, or he is watching it on TV, then will will not be appropriate and you will not find it used by a competent native speaker. Still, it also might be that the event did already occur at some time in the past, but in such a way, or at such a time (as, for example, a time in the extreme distant past) so that no one could possibly validate the fact of the event directly, but its occurrence can reasonably be deduced from available evidence. In such a situation, use of will to express a judgment connecting the evidence to the assumed, but unvarifiable, event is appropriate, and the fundamental meaning stands. Moreover, the user might be unsure of an event because the agent of the event is not under his control and cannot be taken for granted, but some of the circumstances surrounding the event still are known to the user. Here again, will constructions are appropriate and the fundamental meaning stands. It might even be that the user is himself the agent of the event, but because some of the circumstances surrounding the event are uncertain, the connection between them can be deemed possible, but uncertain. In this case, too, will is appropriate, and the fundamental meaning again stands. In all these related, but contextually distinct speaking/writing situations there is a common thread of meaning, which can be stated in relatively simple terms. Many other particular scenarios can be thought of, and because of that, if students are given to understand that each one is another special case, with a special meaning for will, then who can blame them for feeling that knowing all about will is a hopeless undertaking. We teachers can reduce all uses of will to a single fundamental meaning, with interpretations that vary with context. I believe students will be reassured by that.

Now to your examples, Stephen.

Give me the books: I’ll carry them.

Different exact particulars of the circumstances of this use can be imagined. If two people are walking together, and one is struggling with her books, the other person could say this to her. In such a case the meaning might refer to an assumed carrying of the books in future time, since it can be supposed that the speaker knows and understands the books whereof he speaks. He cannot represent the carrying of the books as a factual event, because it hasn’t occurred yet. Nonetheless, the fundamental meaning applies. But this sentence could also occur on the telephone. A trucker says it to a book dealer, not knowing for sure how much weight is involved, believing that his vehicle is up to the job, but not knowing for sure. Future time may be a feature of this use, or the user might be thinking that his truck made some funny noises this morning, and he is not certain it will get to the intended destination before breaking down. In either case, the fundamental meaning applies, with different interpretations. (As an aside, the boyfriend of one of my grown daughters actually is a book dealer, and I was surprised to discover that some of his deals involve semi-truckloads of books, which may weigh many thousands of pounds). Other scenarios may be possible. Simply knowing the sentence often does not give enough information to make an absolute judgment about what it means in practical terms.

Will you open the window?

Several scenarios can be imagined for this sentence too. If will is unstressed, it could simply be a question to, for example, a host in his own house. It might be a request, and as such, the speaker cannot be certain the request will be granted. (There might be no screen on the window, and the host may be unwilling to allow the bugs in). If will is emphatically stressed, this may be a demand. Again, the user cannot be certain of the response, and so cannot represent the event as a fact. But there is a difference here. Since the sentence is a question, the speaker’s judgment is not involved, but the listener’s. The speaker is requesting the listener’s judgment: “OK (I will open the window)” or “No (I won’t because I don’t want the bugs in).” The fundamental meaning still stands, but in this case, the speaker is asking the listener to connect a non-factual event with certain information he (the listener) has. Presumably, the listener will respond with a will construction (even if it is ellipsed). Context might provide other interpretations: perhaps the speaker is a secret agent asking his contact whether he will leave a certain signal with a pre-arranged meaning.

I won’t do it.

This sentence is pretty much like the last one, except that it’s negative…there is simply a not inserted directly following (as always) the modal auxiliary (in this case, will). Many scenarios could obtain, but the fundamental meaning stands that the speaker cannot represent the event as a fact but wishes to convey what he believes is true. After all, his boss might have other ideas about what he will do.

I hope, Stephen, that you will at least consider the possibility that there may be merit to these ideas before you go about insisting that they are nonsense. Students need some help, and this concept offers that.

Larry Latham

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:29 am

Not interested in getting in a fight. I just don't read long statements in big type, and you won't notice anyway.

Edit: Sorry Larry, my comment was supposed to come before yours. I see we posted at the same time.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:59 am

I had just logged on to take up Steven's challenge, only to find that Larry had done it already. There is just a couple more points that need adding:

Indeed I would say thar referring to the future is the most common use of the Present Continuous.

Like will, you can only tell if a sentence in Present Continuous refers to present or future time by looking at the context. Once again, it's not the verb form that tells us we're talking about future time. There's no way of knowing if I'm going to London refers to now (e.g. spoken very loudly into a mobile phone between Cambridge and King's Cross stations) or later (e.g. talking about one's plan for the weekend) without looking at the wider context. Again, the verb form does not provide the time reference. Steven appears to underestimate the importance of context in time referencing.
By the way, my question was about Present Simple as well as Present Continuous. He still hasn't said whether or not he thinks that the use of Present Simple in sentences that refer to future time can be considered evidence that future time is a semantic characteristic of Present Simple (as he does for will and, now, Present Continuous); I eagerly await his reply, safe in the knowledge that he is far too intellectually rigourous to skirt the issue.

The example Give me the books: I'll carry them is revealing as it uses the shortened form. I think that the full form, I will carry them would sound incongruous, which suggests a subtle difference between 'll and will.

Finally, what about the example that started this off in the first place? "Temperatures routinely fell to 50 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. Polar bears padded across the snowy vales of southern England. Neandertals naturally retreated from the worst of it, but even so they will have experienced weather that was at least as bad as a modern Siberian winter." Bill Bryson is making a prediction based on his knowledge; he's saying "Based on what I know about temperatures in Europe during the ice ace, I expect that Neanderthals experienced weather that was at least as bad as a modern Siberian winter". That fits the primary semantic characteristics of will perfectly.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:28 am

After all the discussions about the nature of modality I find it hard to believe that people are talking about a single fundamental meaning for will.

Will has at least three fundamental meanings:

Epistemic - certainty/deduction
The sun will come up tomorrow
They will have been very cold

Deontic - order to do sth
Will you stop that!

Dynamic - volition
Will you take this man/woman to be your lawful wedded husband/wife
I will/I won't.

Note all of these actions can only come into being after they have been said, this is how "will" refers to the future.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:02 am

Note all of these actions can only come into being after they have been said, this is how "will" refers to the future.

How can They will have been very cold refer to something that comes into being after the moment of speaking? It's an expectation that something is or was the case, based on the speaker's knowledge/experience/intuition. That's the primary semantic characteristic (again)

Will you stop that! = I expect you to stop that as I am telling you to i.e. expectation (again). The speaker probably has some form of authority over the listener to address him/her in that way e.g. parent to child, rather than the reverse, which fulfills the "background" knowledge upon which the speaker bases his/her expectation. Once again, the primary semantic characteristic is there.

Will you take this man/woman to be your lawful wedded husband/wife
I will/I won't.
This is a very restricted example, as it's only seen in the context of a wedding ceremony; it's not a productive use of will in the sense that it can't generate new sentences in different contexts and therefore can be safely treated as a special case. It seems to invoke the older sense of will as expressing a wish; quite understandable as marriage is about as traditional as you can get.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:16 pm

Larry, somehow I have the sneaking suspicion that you are looking for other places to post so as to avoid explaining how your description of the fundamental nature of will fits in with the examples I gave in the other thread. Please prove me wrong

Why you even bothered to reply to such an arrogant impolite nitwit, I don't know.

Well done with the explanation, Larry. I totally agree with it.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:21 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:After all the discussions about the nature of modality I find it hard to believe that people are talking about a single fundamental meaning for will.

Will has at least three fundamental meanings:

Epistemic - certainty/deduction

They will have been very cold

Note all of these actions can only come into being after they have been said, this is how "will" refers to the future.

I am surprised that even you think of will only as the future.

In:

They will have been very cold.

Surely the action of being cold took place before the moment of speaking?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:42 pm

Sorry Larry, but your explanation seems to me to boil down to
Will's fundamental meaning is that I can't state what happened as a fact.

The problem is that the same can be said of a load of other verb forms, modal or otherwise. And what do you do when you get different verb forms with the same meaning in a particular context.
Will you open the window?
Can you open the window?

The main problem we have here Larry is that you believe there must be a "fundamental" meaning and I don't. Moreover, I don't even see it as useful as a didactic tool - it seems to me it simply adds another layer of explanation.

Why you even bothered to reply to such an arrogant impolite nitwit, I don't know.

Steve: I think she's a very fast runner, but I'm not certain.

Reported later by me: She can run very fast. Steve said so.

If you mean how often do you habitually misreport things I would say quite often

It is also a jump to say that the speaker's opinion is not involved if one doesn't know the source of information or has personally witnessed the ability.

True, but the verb form used makes no difference.

Why you even bothered to reply to such an arrogant impolite nitwit, I don't know.

Not got your end away lately then? Or does the dog bite back when you try to kick it now?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:45 pm

Larry,

I re-read your last post, and I now think you may be right, but I have to study your post carefully to be sure. It ain't light reading.

Would you mind if I posted it in the modals link in my diagram.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:57 pm

Again, the verb form does not provide the time reference.

100% in agreement. Once agaiin I fail to understand why you are harping on about it.

The example Give me the books: I'll carry them is revealing as it uses the shortened form. I think that the full form, I will carry them would sound incongruous, which suggests a subtle difference between 'll and will.

The difference is that when you stress the auxiliary there is a different emphasis from normal intonation. Applies to 'will' 'can' 'have' 'am' and so on. Nothing subtle or confined to ''ll' and ''will'.

The Present Simple only refers to future time in limited instances.

Will you take this man/woman to be your lawful wedded husband/wife
I will/I won't.
This is a very restricted example, as it's only seen in the context of a wedding ceremony; it's not a productive use of will in the sense that it can't generate new sentences in different contexts and therefore can be safely treated as a special case.

Actualy in many peoples experience it gnerates a never ending saga of equivalent constructions such as
Will you take out the trash?
Will you do the washing up?
Will you please pick up your socks!
and so on.

It seems to invoke the older sense of will as expressing a wish

Perceptive indeed. The truth is that if we are going to have a "fundamental meaning" for 'will' then we might as well choose one that has etymology to back it up. I can tie up that fundamental meaning to every use of will just as artificially as Larry can his.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:05 pm

Actualy in many peoples experience it gnerates a never ending saga of equivalent constructions such as
Will you take out the trash?
Will you do the washing up?
Will you please pick up your socks!
and so on.

Steven, you've completely missed the point here, which is that only a total smart arse would reply "I will" to such a question. The sentences you give are similar in meaning and use to the Will you stop that? example, which, if you reread my post, I think you'll find I've accounted for without resorting to contorted claims of future reference.

The Present Simple only refers to future time in limited instances

Absolutely, but since you accept that it's the context that provides the time reference, not the verb form itself, do you accept that it follows from that the same argument can be made for will (i.e. future reference comes from context, not the modal itself)? And will you accept that that means you don't have to resort to claims that will = future to account for sentences which refer to future time and contain said modal?

The difference is that when you stress the auxiliary there is a different emphasis from normal intonation. Applies to 'will' 'can' 'have' 'am' and so on. Nothing subtle or confined to ''ll' and ''will'

So saying "I will carry those books for you" doesn't have different nuances from "I'll carry those books"? And how do you know whether I'll is short for I will or I shall?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:23 pm

Larry,

I re-read your last post, and I now think you may be right, but I have to study your post carefully to be sure. It ain't light reading.

Would you mind if I posted it in the modals link in my diagram.

I have no fundamental objection, Andy, but you might want to clean it up a bit if you're going to do that. In re-reading it myself, I can see that it could do with some editing.

And be sure to remember, the original source for these ideas, as far as I know, is Michael Lewis. Despite Stephen's bashing of him, his is a very clear-headed analysis, in my view.

Larry Latham

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:45 pm

The problem is that the same can be said of a load of other verb forms, modal or otherwise.

Would you care to enlighten us with a load of examples, Stephen? Particularly the "otherwise" kind. We've already stated here and in other places that use of a modal auxiliary indicates the user is representing that he regards his proposition as a momentary judgment. But what about the "otherwise" kind? Show us some of those.

Larry Latham