Post
by ardsboy » Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:33 pm
6. THE CASE OF THE NON-EXISTENT FUTURE.
6A. Future Tense?
EFL/ESL textbooks will often speak confidently of future tenses, grammars of English will often outline future tenses, and on-line English courses commonly include future tenses. Consequently, most people may be more than a little surprised to learn that English actually has no future tenses at all! To show this, we will look quickly at future time reference in Spanish and German, before turning to English.
Spanish (Castilian), as a Romance language, does have future-tense forms indicating (what we shall call) "pure" future time reference. For example, the first person singular of the simple future tense of Spanish amar (to love) is amaré (I will love). However, present-tense verbforms are perhaps more frequently used in Spanish than future-tense verbforms to refer to future time, as the examples show.
1. Ahorita lo hago / haré. (I'll do it right now.)
2. Mi hermano llega / va a llegar mañana de Estados Unidos. (My brother arrives / is arriving/ is going to arrive from the States tomorrow.)
3. ¡Cuidado! ¡Te vas a caer! (Look out! You're going to fall!)
4. ¿Qué van a hacer hoy en la noche? (What are they doing / are they going to do tonight?)
5. Si llueve, no salimos / vamos a salir / saldremos. (If it rains, we aren't going out / aren't going to go out / won't go out.)
6. Cuando hayas terminado el reporte, mándamelo por fax. (When you've finished the report, fax it to me.)
English, as a Germanic language, has present- and past-tense verbforms, but no future-tense verbforms. A quick look at the German verb werden /vérden/ may help clarify this. As a main verb, werden has the basic meaning of 'become', e.g.
Er wird /virt/ *beep* (He's getting fat).
As an auxiliary, werden has the function of indicating "pure" future time reference, e.g.
Er wird *beep* werden (He'll get fat / He's going to get fat).
However, the verbform wird is not a future-tense form. Rather, wird is the third person singular of the present indicative tense of werden. In other words, wird is a present-tense verbform used for future time reference. (Like Spanish, German also commonly uses present-tense main verbs for future time reference.)
English will may function as a main verb with the basic meaning of 'employ volition' and, by extension, 'bequeath', e.g. He willed the spoon to bend, She willed her fortune to a cat home. It is also a noun, e.g. It's a test of wills, She left us nothing in her will. As an auxiliary, moreover, it retains the idea of volition when used with emphatic stress and, by extension, of "immutable" nature when unstressed, e.g.
That dog will always chase after cars.
George will always whistle in the bath.
Boys will be boys and girls will be girls.
Water will freeze at zero.
But as an auxiliary, will is most closely associated with "pure" future time reference, so much so that the will-plus-base-infinitive structure has earned the name of "simple future tense" in textbooks, grammars, and on-line courses. (Unfortunately, I have seen this structure analyzed as will plus present tense! I have also seen the be going to structure mysteriously described as "idiomatic future".) In reality, will is actually a present-tense verbform in exactly the same way that wird is. The proof of the pudding lies in reported speech and the "volitional" use of will.
6B. The Proof of the Pudding
There are two basic types of reporting: "immediate", which is common in speech; and "lapsed-time", which is common in journalism and historical writing. In lapsed-time reporting, present-tense verbs in the subordinate clauses following reporting verbs are, where possible, commonly "tense-changed", i.e. changed to their corresponding past-tense forms, as the examples show.
7. "The government has no intention of raising taxes."
= Gordon Brown stressed that the government had no intention of raising taxes.
8. "The people of East Timor have much to celebrate."
= Kofi Annan said that the people of East Timor had much to celebrate.
9. "This administration is never going to give in to terrorism."
= President Bush stated that his administration was never going to give in to terrorism.
In 7 to 9, the present-tense verbforms has, have, and is of direct speech are tense-changed to the past-tense verbforms had and was in reported speech. Now let us see what happens if we add will to 9, and then report it.
10. "This administration is never going to / will never give in to terrorism."
= President Bush stated that his administration was never going to / would never give in to terrorism.
The will-would pattern also holds for can-could and may-might, as 11 and 12 show.
11. "Unfortunately, Jack Straw is unable to / cannot attend the conference this afternoon."
= A spokesperson stated that Mr Straw was unable to / could not attend the conference...
12. "The India-Pakistan conflict may escalate into nuclear war unless...."
= White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer expressed the administration's concern that the India-Pakistan conflict might escalate into nuclear war unless....
The case of must is of interest, as must may not be tense-changed and had to must normally be used, as in 13.
13. "Your must / have to hand in your essays by Friday."
= Mr. Fuller-Sessions told his students that they had to hand in their essays by Friday.
Now the form had to is most definitely the past tense of present-tense have to, which may co-occur with must in this tense-changing context. Does this mean that must is also a present-tense form like have to, and therefore that will-would, can-could, and may-might are instances of present- and past-tense pairs? It may also be noted that in 10 to 13, each modal auxiliary is being used in future time reference. Why, then, should only will be singled out as "future tense"?
Returning to the examples of volition, we see that
That dog will always chase after cars
really means 'it is that dog's habit to chase after cars', and that
George will always whistle in the bath
really means 'it is George's habit to sing in the bath'. The time reference is "general present" in both cases. Now, if we change will to would, we see that
That dog would always chase after cars
means 'it was that dog's habit to chase after cars, which is how he got himself killed', and George would always whistle in the bath
means 'it was George's habit to whistle in the bath, but he's no longer around to do it'. Here, the will-would pairing clearly indicates a present-past distinction. There is no futurity in will here.
In sum, if we are to give will the label of "future tense", we should also so label all the other modal auxiliaries, for they may all be used in future time reference. Since we cannot have more than one future tense, we may confidently assert what the above examples have shown in part: modal auxiliaries are historically and technically either present-tense or past-tense verbforms. Present-tense modals are: can, may, must, shall, will, dare, need. Past-tense modals are: could, might, ought, should, would. But this is merely a technicality today, for all modals may be used in past, present, and future time reference.
6C. Future Time Reference.
The most frequent forms used in future time reference in English are modal auxiliary verbs, "semi-modal" verbs (verbs which share and contrast meaning with modals), and present tenses.
· modals, and "semi-modals" such as be able to, be going to, have (got) to, be supposed to, be allowed to, dare (to), need to, had better, etc.:
14. They should / ought to/ 're supposed to be here any time soon.
15. You must / have to / need to hand in your projects by Friday.
16. I daren't / don't dare (to) tell him.
17. You needn't / don't need to worry about accommodation.
18. She may / might / could be going to Germany.
19. Shall / Should I bring something to drink?
20. I'll / 'm going to be there if I can / 'm able (to).
· present and present perfect tenses in subordinate real-time and -condition clauses, and "imperatives" in main clauses:
21. When he arrives, give him a big cheer.
22. When you've finished with the book, pass it on to Gareth.
23. If it rains, we'll / 're going to stay home.
· past tenses in "unreal" conditions and wishes:
24. If I won the lottery, I'd travel around the world.
25. I wish (that) I could meet Bono.
· present simple, including be to, for scheduled or timetabled events:
26. President Fox is to visit Beijing in April.
27. I have an appointment at nine o'clock tomorrow.
28. My plane flies out early in the morning.
· modals plus continuous and perfect infinitives:
29. This time next week I should be lying on the beach.
30. In a few months they'll have been married for sixty years.
But perhaps the future reference forms most specifically treated as "future" in EFL/ESL materials are the "Big Three": will plus base infinitive; be going to plus base infinitive; and present continuous. In some contexts, will and be going to are interchangeable. In other contexts, be going to and present continuous are also interchangeable. (In the past, shall was regarded as the "correct" auxiliary for first person, but today will has superseded shall, which is now restricted to two basic roles in everyday English: offers/invitations, e.g. Shall I open the window?, Shall we dance?; and open (requests for) suggestions, e.g. What shall we do tonight?, Shall we go to the cinema?. In American English, the most influential variety of English today, shall is largely obsolete.)
The future meanings/uses/functions commonly associated with the Big Three are:
1. will plus base infinitive:
predictions/certainty
possibility
sudden decisions
statements of willingness
promises
2. be going to plus base infinitive:
predictions/certainty
"evidence-based" imminent predictions
intentions/plans
3. present continuous:
pre-arranged events
plans in progress
31. You'll meet/'re going to meet a tall, dark, handsome stranger.
32. I'm sure he'll /'s going to be a great success in his new job.
33. Maybe I'll stay home tonight.
34. I'll do it right now.
35. I'll never do it again, I swear.
36. I know what - I'll sell my house.
37. Look out! We're going to crash!
38. We're going to sell our house.
39. I'm going to visit my grandma this weekend.
40. I'm visiting my grandma this weekend.
In 31 to 40, we see the Big Three in "common" future time reference environments. In 31 and 32, will and be going to are essentially interchangeable in the context of prediction and certainty. In 33 to 35, will is common in the context of possibility with maybe/perhaps, statements of willingness, and promises, but be going to could be used, as well, to indicate stronger intention. In 36, will is perhaps more frequent in the context of sudden, out-of-the-blue decisions, but be going to is not impossible. In 37, however, only be going to is normally acceptable in the context of an "evidence-based" imminent prediction. In 38, be going to clearly expresses intention (contrasting with the sudden decision of 36).
Intentions, plans, and arrangements merge into one another. Imagine I decide to go to home to Britain and Ireland for a visit. That is my intention. But it will come to naught unless I take steps to save to buy my ticket, and unless I contact family and friends about dates. That is planning. Eventually, I have my ticket and know who I will be staying with and when. The arrangements have been made, and I can't wait to get gone. In this light, 39 and 40 could be basically synonymous. However, they could also be interpreted differently. While 39 could be seen merely as a statement of intention, meaning that Grandma does not know of her grandchild's plan, 40 could be seen as declaring that everything has been arranged, and Grandma is expecting her grandchild
There is one other common future-reference structure in the "potentially expectative" combination of will and continuous infinitive, where often - but not automatically - there is a built-in expectation involved, as in 41 to 43. Interestingly, subtracting will from the structure leaves us with present continuous, which is most commonly used for pre-arranged situations, thus contributing to the idea of expectation.
41. Will you be stopping by the supermarket today [- you usually do]?
42. Will you be going to the U2 concert next month [- since you like them so much]?
43. I won't be going over to Grandma's this Thursday [- contrary to usual routine].
In conclusion, form and function have become mixed up in the case of the "future". There are no future-tense forms in English (or any other Germanic language). Obviously, native speakers have no problem using verbs (and adverbials) to refer to future time. Perhaps it was originally believed that English must have a future tense because Latin has one, and will was the obvious candidate for the job since it commonly translated "pure" future time reference. To be sure, it may also be convenient to refer to will plus base infinitive as "future simple", will plus continuous infinitive as "future continuous", and will plus perfect infinitives as "future perfect simple" and "future perfect continuous", since these terms neatly parallel the present-tense and past-tense paradigms. But this superficial convenience actually obscures insight into how languages deal with future time reference. For, as our glance at Spanish shows, future time reference in Romance languages involves present-tense as well as if not more than future-tense forms. And, as our look at German and English shows, future time reference in Germanic languages involves a variety of verbforms, not one of which is a future-tense form.
