DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?
Interesting enough, in grammar books for young students, it is a general idea that we have Future Tense, usually expressed by SHALL and WILL. However, when students have evolved to linguists or deep thinkers, they take it for granted that there is no Future Tense. If you on the web search for "there is no future tense in English", you will get some messages like this:
Ex: the authors state: "...there is no future tense in English... there are two tenses in English: present and past. ...but nothing that we can describe as future tense" thus repeating the well known point of view formulated by O. Jespersen and other representatives of American Descriptive Linguistics.
Ex: "Consequently, there is no future tense in English, even though there are, of course, many different ways in which we can talk about the future time:"
Of course we don't want to talk about the use here, it is wasting time. I am interested to know at which stage shall a student change his attitude, from the one admitting we have future tense, to the one we know English tense has no future? Is it about high school? Or in the university?
Your opinion is welcome.
Xui
==========
I will not answer those who commanded me to leave at once, because I have my own schedule. They can play their own academic game in their own threads if they are meaningful enough.
DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
DOES ENGLISH HAVE FUTURE TENSE?
Last edited by Xui on Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Well, I guess these mistaken young students, whoever and wherever they are, will know better whenever they get their hands on better books - which I would hazard would be in university, rather than at high school. 
Um, Jespersen was Danish?!
Last thing, AGAIN, this has been discussed before, in a similarly if not identically-titled thread begun by Shun aka Xui.
Um, Jespersen was Danish?!
Last thing, AGAIN, this has been discussed before, in a similarly if not identically-titled thread begun by Shun aka Xui.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Exactly what I think....
Good morning all!
woodcutter and lolwhites say exactly what I think. Call it what you like, English speakers are able to babble about a moment that is yet to come, even if the "verb" itself does not transform into another word to reflect that.
Or, maybe it does. Being of the "reduction/liaison" school of ESL teaching, I tend to use lolwhites explanation, while teaching that "will" is almost always contracted to the pronoun, which has already been taught as a kind of "prefix" to the verb to let us know who. If English were a phoneticly represented language in writing, perhaps "I will eat" would be the one word "ailiit", with the meaning of "first person singular future intention decided at the moment of speaking form", while "I am going to eat" might be "aimgoingtuwiit" which would be "first person singular future intention decided before the moment of speaking form".
The spaces between the personal pronoun and the auxiliaries and the verb itself are writing accidents and do not reflect what is said. There do indeed exist languages where the main focus is on the present and the future is not spoken about. English is not one of them. We clearly think about and talk about the future, and among those who use the language as a primary means of getting their ideas across, we understand when the future is the time being refered to, knowing this future through many different clues that are not always the verb form.
Leave the verb alone, it's such a weak little thing, always needing other words to give it its time/space relationship! Look at those other words that surround it if you want some complications. However we English speakers choose to construct it, we do indeed have a future tense, or time frame, in our language and if non-natives want to speak well, they will just have to get down to work and learn how we speak about the future and stop looking for ways out of it through "English doesn't have a future tense" type discussions.
peace,
revel.
woodcutter and lolwhites say exactly what I think. Call it what you like, English speakers are able to babble about a moment that is yet to come, even if the "verb" itself does not transform into another word to reflect that.
Or, maybe it does. Being of the "reduction/liaison" school of ESL teaching, I tend to use lolwhites explanation, while teaching that "will" is almost always contracted to the pronoun, which has already been taught as a kind of "prefix" to the verb to let us know who. If English were a phoneticly represented language in writing, perhaps "I will eat" would be the one word "ailiit", with the meaning of "first person singular future intention decided at the moment of speaking form", while "I am going to eat" might be "aimgoingtuwiit" which would be "first person singular future intention decided before the moment of speaking form".
The spaces between the personal pronoun and the auxiliaries and the verb itself are writing accidents and do not reflect what is said. There do indeed exist languages where the main focus is on the present and the future is not spoken about. English is not one of them. We clearly think about and talk about the future, and among those who use the language as a primary means of getting their ideas across, we understand when the future is the time being refered to, knowing this future through many different clues that are not always the verb form.
Leave the verb alone, it's such a weak little thing, always needing other words to give it its time/space relationship! Look at those other words that surround it if you want some complications. However we English speakers choose to construct it, we do indeed have a future tense, or time frame, in our language and if non-natives want to speak well, they will just have to get down to work and learn how we speak about the future and stop looking for ways out of it through "English doesn't have a future tense" type discussions.
peace,
revel.
Attitude change
Continuing....
Then there is the question of when students should be expected to change their attitudes. I don't know anything about how students are funneled through schooling in China. I do know quite a bit about education in general. I also know a bit about learning and growing.
When must children begin to change their attitudes about the ABCs? They all learn that cute little song (now I've said my ABCs, tell me what you think of me) and most can recite the ABCs from A to Z after just a few rounds of the song. But can they spell their name? Can they identify a letter by its name? Can they say "chei" when it's a J and "chii" when it's a G? When do they have to stop running through the entire alphabet in order to name a V?
Should we stop teaching the ABCs song? Children will not find the ABCs said in order in any other context. We use the letters to spell out things. They are also an important basis for filing away information, and there the order is important, but who begins at A to remember if R comes before or after the Q? Should we not teach the ABCs out of order from the beginning? If we teach the song, are we not hiding the reality from the children? Is this part of the conspiracy?
Learning is a constant change of attitudes. Little children are not always aware of the need to use the ABCs as a language tool rather than as a silly little ditty to hum under their breaths while playing with clay or coloring a drawing. The song introduces them to the letters and how the letters are said, and helps establish the order, which they will need once a dictionary becomes an important learning tool for them. Then they will need to change their attitudes. They will need to spell out their names. The teacher will spell out new vocabulary. There will not be time to run through the entire ABCs which is their habit, but rather, they will have to face up to the fact that it might be the QPF's instead.
The when of this change of attitude depends directly on the objectives and the timeline of the class as well as the aptitude of the students in question. One simplified information is not a lie, it is simply simplified information given to pave the way for more compex information. Perhaps the problem does not lay in what the grammar books say about verbs, but rather if those grammar books are being used as the last word on verbs, if students are taught to take each and every word from a grammar as if it were originally etched in gold tablets, now lost to mankind, but thankfully preserved in our minds through the printed word. For heaven's sake, we're talking about language here, the only real rule should be that already recognized, that there are no rules, just observations. That is what should be taught.
peace,
revel.
Then there is the question of when students should be expected to change their attitudes. I don't know anything about how students are funneled through schooling in China. I do know quite a bit about education in general. I also know a bit about learning and growing.
When must children begin to change their attitudes about the ABCs? They all learn that cute little song (now I've said my ABCs, tell me what you think of me) and most can recite the ABCs from A to Z after just a few rounds of the song. But can they spell their name? Can they identify a letter by its name? Can they say "chei" when it's a J and "chii" when it's a G? When do they have to stop running through the entire alphabet in order to name a V?
Should we stop teaching the ABCs song? Children will not find the ABCs said in order in any other context. We use the letters to spell out things. They are also an important basis for filing away information, and there the order is important, but who begins at A to remember if R comes before or after the Q? Should we not teach the ABCs out of order from the beginning? If we teach the song, are we not hiding the reality from the children? Is this part of the conspiracy?
Learning is a constant change of attitudes. Little children are not always aware of the need to use the ABCs as a language tool rather than as a silly little ditty to hum under their breaths while playing with clay or coloring a drawing. The song introduces them to the letters and how the letters are said, and helps establish the order, which they will need once a dictionary becomes an important learning tool for them. Then they will need to change their attitudes. They will need to spell out their names. The teacher will spell out new vocabulary. There will not be time to run through the entire ABCs which is their habit, but rather, they will have to face up to the fact that it might be the QPF's instead.
The when of this change of attitude depends directly on the objectives and the timeline of the class as well as the aptitude of the students in question. One simplified information is not a lie, it is simply simplified information given to pave the way for more compex information. Perhaps the problem does not lay in what the grammar books say about verbs, but rather if those grammar books are being used as the last word on verbs, if students are taught to take each and every word from a grammar as if it were originally etched in gold tablets, now lost to mankind, but thankfully preserved in our minds through the printed word. For heaven's sake, we're talking about language here, the only real rule should be that already recognized, that there are no rules, just observations. That is what should be taught.
peace,
revel.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Clear and concise
Good morning all!
Let's see, then, what was I trying to say?
English speakers do speak about the future and use different structures to do so. The verb itself only represents the action in question, it is the surrounding words that cast that action into the future, that is, a moment that is yet to come, in contrast to the moment of speaking or a moment that has already past. As woodcutter seems to imply, call it a tense or don't call it a tense, whichever suits your fancy or teaching style.
As to when to reveal this to your students, well, I myself teach in a gradual fashion, meaning that I begin with basics and then build upon them. Throughout their study with me, my students always know that we are setting up foundations upon which we will be building in every class. There is no moment in which I tell them something as if it were the one and only truth and then ask them to adapt to something new as if that first truth were a lie. I am always saying "this is how things are at your present level, once you've captured this, I'll complicate things for you a little."
There you have it. Short and sweet, and I hope a bit clearer than my earlier ravings!
peace,
revel.
Let's see, then, what was I trying to say?
English speakers do speak about the future and use different structures to do so. The verb itself only represents the action in question, it is the surrounding words that cast that action into the future, that is, a moment that is yet to come, in contrast to the moment of speaking or a moment that has already past. As woodcutter seems to imply, call it a tense or don't call it a tense, whichever suits your fancy or teaching style.
As to when to reveal this to your students, well, I myself teach in a gradual fashion, meaning that I begin with basics and then build upon them. Throughout their study with me, my students always know that we are setting up foundations upon which we will be building in every class. There is no moment in which I tell them something as if it were the one and only truth and then ask them to adapt to something new as if that first truth were a lie. I am always saying "this is how things are at your present level, once you've captured this, I'll complicate things for you a little."
There you have it. Short and sweet, and I hope a bit clearer than my earlier ravings!
peace,
revel.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
In answer to Xui's question the answer is no.
The reason is that 'will' is a modal auexiliary and there are two verb systems in English. The tense system (which consists of two tenses, the present and past, eiither of which can possess none, one or both of the Pefect and Continous aspects) and the modal system.
So to say that 'will' is a future tense, we would be obliged, for consistency's sake, to accept 'would' is the conditional tense, but also that 'can' is the Potestative Tense, that 'might' is the Dubitative tense, that 'should' is the Ethical Tense, that 'may' is the tense used to translate firm promises in Arabic, that 'must' is the Urgent tense and so on.
Now, I see no objection in saying for example that 'will' does almost exactly the same job as the Future tense in Spanish, but the English verb system is structurally much too simple and elegant without q future tense, for it to be worth the trouble to do other than what lolwhites suggests.
The reason is that 'will' is a modal auexiliary and there are two verb systems in English. The tense system (which consists of two tenses, the present and past, eiither of which can possess none, one or both of the Pefect and Continous aspects) and the modal system.
So to say that 'will' is a future tense, we would be obliged, for consistency's sake, to accept 'would' is the conditional tense, but also that 'can' is the Potestative Tense, that 'might' is the Dubitative tense, that 'should' is the Ethical Tense, that 'may' is the tense used to translate firm promises in Arabic, that 'must' is the Urgent tense and so on.
Now, I see no objection in saying for example that 'will' does almost exactly the same job as the Future tense in Spanish, but the English verb system is structurally much too simple and elegant without q future tense, for it to be worth the trouble to do other than what lolwhites suggests.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Actually, "admitting" is not quite the right word here, is it! Nor, for that matter, is "denying", or "attitude" either. What words would better describe the mental processes and stages that a student might go through, Shun? (Yup, that's right, I am trying to teach you the nuances of English now).
Once you have hit upon better words, you will more or less have your answer too.
Hint: as we are fond of saying here on Dave's (and for good reason!), "Well, it depends..."
Once you have hit upon better words, you will more or less have your answer too.
Hint: as we are fond of saying here on Dave's (and for good reason!), "Well, it depends..."
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I'm not sure about that. Looking at the dictionary once more, a tense is a grammatical inflection to indicate time. So these other modals don't cut the tense mustard. The point is whether an auxiliary is a kind of grammatical inflection.So to say that 'will' is a future tense, we would be obliged, for consistency's sake, to accept 'would' is the conditional tense, but also that 'can' is the Potestative Tense, that 'might' is the Dubitative tense, that 'should' is the Ethical Tense, that 'may' is the tense used to translate firm promises in Arabic, that 'must' is the Urgent tense and so on.
Though also there is the problem of "will" being limited to only certain kinds of future situation.
The destruction of time....
Hey all!
I read or heard somewhere that on the Second Coming, one of the first things the returning Christ will do will be to kill time. Curious concept.
Until that blesséd day, though, we have to admit that time is one of the frameworks we use to organize our lives, our realities. A student of psycho-linguistics might be interested in divining how a culture experiences time through the way that culture speaks about the past, the present, the future. The now, the not now but rather then, and the other then, one in front of the now and the other behind the now. Or the before and the after of the now. Comparing the process in L1 to L2 might help students to get a grasp on the time-construct of the L2 culture and that would be useful in learning use.
Maybe it's just my way of teaching, but I find that my students don't care if it is called a "tense" or a "mode" or if linguists make a distinction between the two (or three or four). They generally want to be able to communicate their own time reality within the constructs of L2 so that they are understood, and can understand. I don't care if they know what the construction is called, I care if they use that construction appropriately. To divorce "use" from "structure" is a little silly to me and not at all an economic use of class time.
Does that sound like Shun again? I'm improvising quickly here, have to run out and teach the present simple of the verb "be" to 13 ten-year-olds, sorry there!
peace,
revel.
I read or heard somewhere that on the Second Coming, one of the first things the returning Christ will do will be to kill time. Curious concept.
Until that blesséd day, though, we have to admit that time is one of the frameworks we use to organize our lives, our realities. A student of psycho-linguistics might be interested in divining how a culture experiences time through the way that culture speaks about the past, the present, the future. The now, the not now but rather then, and the other then, one in front of the now and the other behind the now. Or the before and the after of the now. Comparing the process in L1 to L2 might help students to get a grasp on the time-construct of the L2 culture and that would be useful in learning use.
Maybe it's just my way of teaching, but I find that my students don't care if it is called a "tense" or a "mode" or if linguists make a distinction between the two (or three or four). They generally want to be able to communicate their own time reality within the constructs of L2 so that they are understood, and can understand. I don't care if they know what the construction is called, I care if they use that construction appropriately. To divorce "use" from "structure" is a little silly to me and not at all an economic use of class time.
Does that sound like Shun again? I'm improvising quickly here, have to run out and teach the present simple of the verb "be" to 13 ten-year-olds, sorry there!
peace,
revel.
Like a moth drawn to a light bulb, I find myself compelled to reingnite the debate on will. Someone slap me before it's too late....
Personally I don't see how we can consider it a tense when it behaves like a modal and doesn't involve any kind of morphological change to the main verb. In any case, as we've seen, the link between tense and time is far from universally accepted.
I won't go into why I don't consider future time to be a primary semantic characteristic of will - I would simply direct anyone interested to read the "Interesting use of Future Perfect" thread and make up their own minds.
Personally I don't see how we can consider it a tense when it behaves like a modal and doesn't involve any kind of morphological change to the main verb. In any case, as we've seen, the link between tense and time is far from universally accepted.
I won't go into why I don't consider future time to be a primary semantic characteristic of will - I would simply direct anyone interested to read the "Interesting use of Future Perfect" thread and make up their own minds.