Cast Iron Will

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 2:38 am

"Going to" is for set plans. "Will" is for when we decide our plans at the moment of speaking. This is a common statement, for example-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learn ... allenge34/

However, on a deeper level, will is the cast iron future, and "I will go to the cinema" sounds too cast in iron, right? "Going to" actually carries a weak built in maybe, an idea that plans can always fail?

iain · Post by **iain** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:23 pm

I think the whole future thing is too vague and slippery for the 'in-built, weak 'maybe' that 'going to' carries. Like so much else, 'it depends'.
When I tell my younger son 'you're going to finish that soup!' there is no 'maybe' in his mind or in mine.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:54 pm

I wonder if as a basic rule of thumb it isn't better to teach it like I said though, while emphasizing that will + modifier makes it a different kettle of fish. Basically in the example you gave the choice is irrelevant - my "rule" isn't at least, going to lead you badly up the garden path, as an idea that "will" is the future of maybes might.

By the way, here's a lesson-plans-are-us plan from about.com. It would appear to suggest that you should say "will" unless you definitely have a set plan, even in a question. Is that the best rule of thumb, in your book?

:Start the lesson off by asking some questions with 'will' and 'going to'. Be sure to mix the questions up. For example:
What do you think will happen at school tomorrow?, What are you going to do after school today?, What will you do if you don't understand this lesson?, Where are you going to travel on your next vacation?

Ask students to reflect on the questions you asked. Which forms did you use? Can they explain why?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:09 am

"Going to" is for set plans. "Will" is for when we decide our plans at the moment of speaking. This is a common statement, for example-

True, but will is also used for predictions about the future so
"What'll you do tonight?"
"I'll go to the cinema."
may refer to something fixed.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:00 am

As I said, it seems to me that viewing will as the fixed future goes a very long way, and naturally we will use that for definite predictions (while using the weaker going to for assumptions based on evidence around us).

What will you do tonight? I'll go to the cinema

is the classic example of a learner getting it "wrong". In what situation would we say that?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:41 am

As I said, it seems to me that viewing will as the fixed future goes a very long way, and naturally we will use that for definite predictions (while using the weaker going to for assumptions based on evidence around us).

Why do you call 'going to' the weaker form?

'Going to' again has two usages. For predictions based on present evidence and for plans or intentions.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:08 am

I'm toying with this as my thumbnail explanation:

"Will" is a form which expresses a fixed view of future time.

"Going to" expresses that something is to be expected.

(or maybe, that such a thing is intended)

Either is trumped by words which express other meanings like "maybe" or "definitely". In such cases either is OK, and the same applies to questions.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:10 am

"Will" is a form which expresses a fixed view of future time.

"Going to" expresses that something is to be expected.

What relationship, if any, does either statement have with reality?

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:08 am

Since you think the response "I will go to the cinema" is fine, then your own explanation is presumably that either is OK on any occasion. That is one of the few really off sounding things we have to work with when looking at this topic. To my mind that, and "It will rain" sound too certain. Is there a better explanation for why we can't say these things?

Elsewhere we need an all encompassing meaning, but here we must stick rigidly to our list of functions?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:40 pm

Elsewhere we need an all encompassing meaning, but here we must stick rigidly to our list of functions?

I would say that if we are dealing with modals we should stick to the list of functions, since there is no all encompassing meaning.

The present situation we have with the modals is clear formally, but we are dealing with a snapshot frozen at this period of time. All the modals were at one time normal verbs with meanings ('can' still does though it cannot stand alone, and 'will' also acts as a stand-alone verb). The result is that they have developed certain functions over the centuries, and these functions are not easily deducible from the historic meaning.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:28 am

Perhaps. The function I most dislike though, is "will for predictions". If we want to somehow make out that the future is fixed and we are privy to it, then yes, will. But since we usually predict based on evidence we see or heard, or things a person said, or plans a person made, we more often predict with "going to" - it's not just for rain.

I'm pretty open to the "both are OK don't worry" school of thought by the way. Why do we do this stuff in basic lessons?