The Future exists!

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:34 am

Dramatic thread title, but what follows is probably pretty mudane for most of you guys (we've kind of been through this before)...but still, do you think Stern makes a good point?

FUTURE TENSE: DOES IT EXIST IN ENGLISH?

The commonsense view is that it does, and traditional grammarians support this view. After all, we can say They will arrive tomorrow. But most modern grammarians (including Noam Chomsky and Michael Halliday) insist that there is no such tense: only a present and past tense.

Stern goes on to mention Crystal ('English has no future tense ending ... Rather, future time is expressed by a variety of other means. One of these - the use of will or shall - is often loosely referred to as the "future tense". But this usage changes the meaning of the word "tense" so that it no longer refers only to the use of verb endings'), then contrasts Crystal's views with those of Jespersen, Robert Burchfield and Celia Millward (all of whom point to the semantic development, in terms of "(pure) futurity", of the auxiliaries will and shall).

In conclusion Stern says:

So the question of whether English has a future tense boils down to whether we should count only forms with certain endings (inflections) as "tenses" or whether the term "tense" can also encompass forms constructed with auxiliary verbs such as shall and will. A comparison of English with Italian is interesting...(Stern then includes a table containing these verb paradigms: I find/I found/I will find/I would find; trovo/trovai/trovero/troverei).

Are we to say, then, that Italian has four tenses because they are all inflected, and English only two because only two are inflected? I believe not. Or are we to say that "I found" is tensed in English because it has no auxiliary, but "I did not find" is not tensed because it has the auxiliary did? Surely not.

(Dr George Stern, The Grammar Dictionary. 2000. R.I.C Publications, Greenwood WA).

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:17 am

For me it boils down to what must happen with any specialist vocabulary. The language specialist will say (note that non future use of "will") to another specialist or student or non-specialist "It's the wrong tense" without going into, or getting from the other specialist (we hope), some endless dissertation about it not really being a tense according to some.

Presumably other specialist areas have a set of terms that can be used loosely and strictly. My brother is very boring on his boat about ropes, sheets and painters but will say "rope" when it isn't strictly a "rope" according to him.

So I don't beef about "future tense" in public whatever my private reservations.

What do the terminologically obsessed make of that ""did not find" is not tensed" ?

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:03 am

I found this at Lewis's The English Verb (page 145)

Speculation

If most native speakers are asked for the future of I hit him, they suggest I'll hit him. There is a tendency even for native speakers to believe that 'll is "the future"in English. We have seen that this is not technically true; it is not possible to identify the expression if Future Time with will/shall/'ll, nor will/shall/'ll with the expression of Future Time. Nonetheless, it is clear that the unstressed form 'll, expressing as it does a concept of weak inevitability and psychological immediacy, must approximate to "a neutral future". It is interesting to speculate that the 'll form is evolving in the direction of a neutral future - an English "future tense."

And on the tense affair he states on page 50.

...It means that there is a morphological change in the base form of the verb. A verb which is made with an auxiliary is not, in this technical meaning a "tense".

I can't draw any conclusions yet (who can?) I just quoted Lewis to show that even his views open the door on the matter of what is or not tense.

José

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:36 pm

Structurally, 'will' and 'shall' behave exactly as all other modal auxiliaries such as 'can', 'may', 'might', 'should' and 'must'. To claim that 'will' and 'shall' are the future tense, whilst all the others are not is illogical; on the other hand nobody talks about 'can' being the potentative tense, 'must' being the obligatory tense, or 'should' being the advisable tense.

As for what I make of Dr. Stern, whoever he is, the answer is not much. How is it commonsensical to say that a future tense exists in English, and what tradition are his 'traditional grammarians' following?

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:34 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:

Structurally, 'will' and 'shall' behave exactly as all other modal auxiliaries such as 'can', 'may', 'might', 'should' and 'must'. To claim that 'will' and 'shall' are the future tense, whilst all the others are not is illogical; on the other hand nobody talks about 'can' being the potentative tense, 'must' being the obligatory tense, or 'should' being the advisable tense.

As for what I make of Dr. Stern, whoever he is, the answer is not much. How is it commonsensical to say that a future tense exists in English, and what tradition are his 'traditional grammarians' following?

Structurally, yes, but syntax (if that's what you mean by "structurally") is nothing without semantics:
Philosophically speaking, future could only be a tense if it is completely deterministic. Root modality, which is most strongly expressed by "will" when it is nearest in meaning to a future tense is deterministic (and dynamic modality - volition is more deterministic than deontic modality as it is not based on the co-operation of the subject), epistemic modality which is most weakly expressed by "will" when it is nearest in meaning to a future tense is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

In real life there is of course a continuum from what is probabilistic to what is deterministic although unlike some other continuums thare are things that are wholly one or the other as well.

I feel that "will" still falls shorter of being a tense than the past and present tense, but it certainly has some tense-like features and probably to a greater degree than other modal verbs. The perfect aspect could also be said to have tense-like features.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:02 pm

Philosophically speaking, future could only be a tense if it is completely deterministic.

Can you explain what this means, if anything.

Root modality, which is most strongly expressed by "will" when it is nearest in meaning to a future tense is deterministic

And this

volition is more deterministic than deontic modality as it is not based on the co-operation of the subject)

ditto

epistemic modality which is most weakly expressed by "will" when it is nearest in meaning to a future tense is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

For what particular ailment did your doctor prescribe using at least fifty big words a day?

although unlike some other continuums thare are things that are wholly one or the other as well.

And here's silly me thinking all continuums had a begining and an end, or at least two opposite poles.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 8:04 pm

Stephen,

Philosophically speaking, future could only be a tense if it is completely deterministic.
Can you explain what this means, if anything.

"Colourless green ideas sleep furiously," doesn't mean anything, what I write always means something. What I'm suggesting is that future is generally modal because it hasn't happened and we don't therefore know the future with certainty. This is a philosophical outlook as all modality is. Philosophically, there is one exception to this and that is completely deterministic future. An example of this would be Newton's first law of motion:

A body will remain at rest or in a state of uniform motion unless it is acted upon by a force.

We are limited by language to expressing this modally despite the fact that this is completely deterministic.

Root modality, which is most strongly expressed by "will" when it is nearest in meaning to a future tense is deterministic.

Root modality consists of:
1) deontic modality - trying to control something in the real world, and
2) dynamic modality - subject oriented. Ability is an inherant quality whether I as the speaker recognise it or not, so is volition.

volition is more deterministic than deontic modality as it is not based on the co-operation of the subject)

epistemic modality which is most weakly expressed by "will" when it is nearest in meaning to a future tense is probabilistic rather than deterministic.

Somebody may attempt to control something in the real world and not manage to do it. Epistemic modality (the third type of modality) is probabalistic this word is the opposite of detemanistic as such, future is truely modal where the sense is epistemic.

For what particular ailment did your doctor prescribe using at least fifty big words a day?

Brevis esse latoro obscurus fio - Horace.

although unlike some other continuums thare are things that are wholly one or the other as well.
And here's silly me thinking all continuums had a begining and an end, or at least two opposite poles.

No, some continuums have opposite poles, other do not. The electromagnetic spectrum is an example of a continuum without opposite poles.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:55 pm

http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/futures.html
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 6979#36979

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:25 pm

Is the future tense in any language "completely deterministic"? Is AP suggesting here that no language has one?

When did he last post, by the way?

Sally Olsen · Post by **Sally Olsen** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:01 am

Andrew last posted Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:39 pm I hope it keeps it up. I've always enjoyed his posts.

The Mongolian teachers would have a fit if there wasn't a Future tense. It is on the Verb Tense poster right after Past. What they don't understand is the Perfect as Mongolian is not suppose to have this tense. Funny because I hear them using it in Mongolian all the time. It is just not in the books.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:10 am

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=897

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:13 am

We all know that will behaves like a modal auxiliary. So otherwise the future doesn't exist, according to that article, basically because "They will meet in the final" is weaker than "They meet in the final". Hmmm. Isn't it only "weaker" because if it isn't actually decided in the schedule you can still say it? Doesn't that just make it broader?

I think most languages bugger about quite a lot. Better to stick to helpful, meaningful terms all the same, I always think, that can be broadly applied across a number of languages. English obviously has a stronger claim to having a "future tense" than Chinese. It has a set of stuff that you need to learn to talk about the future, not just future time words. Let's just accept that this stuff has traditionally gone under the label "future tense", and not worry so much about it. Why make a song and dance about (arbitrarily) applying a rigid linguistic definition to the word tense, when that is always going to be a losing battle due to the way the word is used colloquially? Aren't there better things to talk about? (Some demonstration of basic sociolinguistic knowledge about prescriptivism and general language use amongst some high-falutin' people would be a good start.)

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:57 pm

By the way, what do you view as necessary for a "tense? An inflection on a verb form? Can an auxiliary be a tense if it works simply as a future or past marker? Is it wrong to ever use the word tense in relation to basically synthetic languages like Chinese? That's what the "English has no future" arguments would suggest to me, but certainly linguists do often speak of tenses concerning such languages.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:47 am

woodcutter wrote:Is it wrong to ever use the word tense in relation to basically synthetic languages like Chinese? That's what the "English has no future" arguments would suggest to me, but certainly linguists do often speak of tenses concerning such languages.

I don't recall anyone applying the word 'tense' to Chinese in the books I've read about Chinese, not even in the 'Teach Yourself' sort of books (and usually coursebook writers aren't as linguistically finicky)...so 'tense', no, 'aspect', maybe, and 'Ways of talking about the future' and 'adverbials of time', quite probably.

Sorry that I haven't replied to your earlier post, but Mark Liberman started at least three other related threads, and the reader Comments there are multiplying too, plus I've had my mind on other things (reference and the use of articles, and complement patterns, to name two). I will try to get back to you at some point, though (so that my previous post doesn't remain the 'just out of interest' ("interest"!) type); all I know is that I've never really felt like I've pinned "the future" down much less nailed it, so the LL posts will get fully read (and then re-read) at some point soon(ish)!

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:02 am

I suppose I may be imagining things - and certainly the use of the word "tense" is often avoided. However, Chinese does have the wretched particle "le" which gets together with verbs, on occasion, to express past.

So again, is it necessary to inflect a verb to get a tense? I say that either we should always use that strict definition, or we should allow the word tense for even not quite tickety-boo non-Indoeuropean tongues, and easily end the unenlightening debate.