English grammar - Roger Berry 2012
Michael Lewis
D5 Future time - A summary
Section D Extension
Michael Lewis (1986) reprinted from Chapter 17 of The English Verb, Hove, Language Teaching Publications.
This reading is pedagogically oriented (i.e. it aims to be intelligible to teachers) and provides some interesting insights into ways of expressing future time in English. Lewis discusses some forms already covered in this book, such as ’will’ (A5) and the present progressive (B5 — which he calls ’durative’ as well as continuous), but other forms discussed are not related to tense or aspect, such as ’(be) going to’, and ’be to’. His idea of conceptualisation is similar to that of Lee’s ’construing’ (see D2 and D4): the importance of the way we perceive events and states.
English possesses no formal future tense but, of course, it is possible to talk about Future Time. A number of different verb forms are possible and the choice of the correct one is frequently a source of confusion for foreign learners. It is not possible to give simple, easily accessible, comprehensive rules which describe the differences between the different possible forms. Much of the discussion in this book has concentrated upon the fact that verb forms are frequently a matter of the speaker’s choice. This applies particularly to events in Future Time which are not, of their nature, factually or objectively knowable in the same way that events in Past Time or Present Time are.
Examination of the uses of those verb forms which sometimes refer to Future Time and sometimes do not, shows that all uses of the form always have the same primary semantic characterisitics. Those occasions when the verb form is used with reference to Future Time are not different in kind. The consistency and regularity of the use of the verb forms which is one of the central themes of this book are fully preserved.
In several cases, uses of the forms which refer to Future Time are discussed in the appropriate chapters. Some of the contrasts are gathered together here for convenience. Six verb forms are common to refer to Future Time:
1. I’m going to leave tomorrow.
2. I’m leaving tomorrow.
3. I leave tomorrow.
4. I am to leave tomorrow.
5. I’ll leave tomorrow.
6. I’ll be leaving tomorrow.
Statements about Future Time are not statements of fact but predictions, guesses, etc. We expect the different forms chosen in some way to reflect the differing nature of the guesses, predictions, etc. Examination of how the forms are used, shows that they are used consistently and that the choices depend on how the speaker conceptualises the future event at the moment of speaking. It is helpful in considering the speaker’s conceptualisation to ask why the speaker thinks the future event will occur.
Not ’degree of certainty’
Some readers may be familiar with the suggestion made by Leech (Meaning and the English Verb, Longman, 1971) that the choice of verb appropriate for a future event may be decided according to the degree of certainty ascribed to the future happening. He suggests:
Such an explanation is attractive because it is fairly simple for both teacher and student to grasp. There are, however, two difficulties - first, if the explanation is true, the difference between the various degrees of certainty is extremely subtle and, however simple the explanation is in theory, it is of little practical use. Second, however, there is a much greater problem - it is, quite simply, that the explanation is not true. I have on numerous occasions when speaking to native speaker audiences asked them to rate in order of ’degree of certainty’ the sentences given at the beginning of the chapter. On every single occasion when I have done this with an audience of more than 12 the voting for ’most certain’ and ’least certain’ has split over at least three of the examples. Not infrequently some native speakers have voted one example ’most certain’ while others in the same group have voted the same example ’least certain’. If native speakers cannot even agree on which is most or least certain, they are going to find it impossible to range the other examples between the two extremes. Such evidence seems to me to prove conclusively that ’degree of certainty’ is not only an impractical classroom explanation, it is also completely without foundation.
The essential distinction between the different forms is the nature of the speaker’s conceptualisation of the future act or event. Nobody except the speaker can know the speaker’s conceptualisation. All we can do, is to point to parallels with other uses of the same form, or contrasts with the uses of different forms, to indicate the nature of the events described by particular verb forms.
1. (be) going to
This form is used if, at the moment of speaking, the speaker has evidence for the future event. That evidence may be either external (clouds or a tickle in the nose) or internal (a plan or decision):
It’s going to rain.
I’m going to sneeze.
I’m not going to tell you.
From the speaker’s point of view such uses are similar; in each case the evidence is clear to the speaker, and the future act is seen as the culmination of a previous sequence of events or thoughts. The future event is a projection or extrapolation of events preceding, and up to, the point Now.
Statements of the ’internal evidence’ type, will frequently begin with ’I’; questions using this form more frequently involve ’you’ or a third person:
I’m definitely not going to take the exam in summer.
Are you going to take the exam this summer?
Is he going to go to university?
Other combinations can occur.
What on earth am I going to do about it?
You are definitely not going to borrow mine!
but of course my internal evidence tends to be about me and questions about internal evidence are usually about other people.
(be) going to is non-modal. It does not involve the speaker’s personal judgment and, in particular, is non-volitional. Events described using (be) going to are seen as arising out of a process which is already in progress at the time of speaking. This is clear from an example such as:
What do you think is going to happen next?
where the listener’s opinion is sought about something which happens independently of speaker or listener.
In some ways (be) going to forms are similar to (be)+ . . . ing forms. There is, however, one important distinction.
2. The present durative
It is not always possible to use the present durative to refer to Future Time:
1. *It’s raining tomorrow.
2. I’m playing tennis on Saturday.
3. *(?) I’m watching TV tomorrow evening.
Example 1 is impossible; 2 seems natural and 3, although possible, is less likely than an alternative form, e.g. I’m going to watch . . . or I’ll be watching
We need to think once more of the defining characteristics of the present dura- tive. It is used if, at the moment of speaking, the speaker conceptualises the action as occurring between precisely two points in time, one before and one after the point Now. At the moment of speaking the speaker has in mind two points, one on either side of Now, between which the action, as far as the speaker is concerned, exists. It can be represented diagrammatically:
We see immediately why (1) is impossible. There is no way that the speaker can have in mind at Now some event which pre-dates Now and which is conceptualised as an intrinsic part of It’s raining tomorrow. This contrasts with I’m seeing him tomorrow in which the arrangement of the meeting pre-dates Now and is seen by the speaker as an intrinsic part of the future act.
It is easy to see why arrangements, particularly made between the speaker and another person, may be expressed using this form. The speaker has in mind a precise event which pre-dates Now - the making of the arrangement - and an event which post-dates Now - the performing of the action itself, and, seeing these two events as linked and surrounding Now, chooses the verb form which expresses exactly those characteristics.
In example 2, we know that tennis involves playing with other people and that, therefore, some event must have preceded Now for the speaker to be able to make the statement about tomorrow. For this reason example 2 seems natural.
Example 3 feels a little unnatural; television watching is not usually arranged but, equally, on exactly those occasions when there is an event which pre-dates the moment of speaking and culminates in the performance of the action, example 3 will be appropriate.
The use of the present continuous to refer to Future Time is by no means random. The meaning of the (be) + . . . ing form interacts with the meaning of the verb itself. In some cases the combination is semantically impossible with Future Time reference, in others frequent, and in others rare. The form is used for precisely the same reasons to refer to Future Time as for all other uses. The frequently-used heading ’the present continuous used for the future’ is an illusion; such uses are exactly like all others.
[. . .]
A pair such as:
What will you do when you leave school?
What are you doing when you leave school?
are both possible but suggest very different situations. The first suggests the speaker is inviting the other person to discuss the question and that the listener’s present opinion is of immediate interest; the second suggests that the speaker would like to know the arrangements which the other person has already made, or thoughts he has already had; it is more a request for information.
As we have seen on several occasions in this book when considering contrasting pairs of this kind, the connotational differences understood by the hearer are a direct result of the meanings characteristically associated with the verb forms chosen.
The inclusion of will or ’ll, being modal, concentrates on the precise moment of speaking, Now; the present durative associates the future event with a point which precedes Now.
The present durative with reference to Future Time resembles (be) going to, in that both relate the event in Future Time to something preceding Now. The distinction, sometimes slight, is that with the present durative there is usually a single event which pre-dates Now, whereas with (be) going to there is a sequence of events up to Now which the speaker projects forward to the future event. The contrast is clear with the pair:
What are you doing tomorrow?
What are you going to do tomorrow?
The first asks about the event you have already planned, and which will occur tomorrow; the second enquires about the listener’s thinking up to now about tomorrow. With the present durative the event which pre-dates Now is more isolated from Now; with (be) going to there is something which pre-dates Now, but what is happening at the moment of speaking is also important.
3. The ’present simple’
The basic form is used when the lexical meaning of the verb alone is sufficient to convey the full message. With a pronoun, in ’the present simple’, it is used when the speaker conceptualises the event as ’pure fact’. It is associated with ’simple facts’, objective truth. Time reference is accidental to the occurrence of this form; it is appropriate precisely on the occasions that the questions When? and On what occasion? are not appropriate. (This was discussed in detail in Chapter 8.)
The form will be appropriate for events in Future Time when the speaker sees the future event as occurring quite independently of his understanding, perception, volition, etc. The event is determined by what the speaker sees as an external force majeure. This may be natural, or an appropriate timetable-making body:
Christmas Day falls on a Thursday this year.
What time does the sun rise next Saturday?
Arsenal play away next weekend.
We leave at 4 o’clock tomorrow afternoon.
It is comparatively unusual for this form to be used about I or we and notice that, in the example just given which contains we, the suggestion is clearly that we are catching a train or coach, rather than that we will be setting off with our own car, in which case We’re leaving about 4 tomorrow or We are going to leave at 4 tomorrow would be more natural.
As we saw in Chapter 8 the verb form in: We leave at 4 o’clock is not intrinsically associated with a particular point in time. The occurrence of the phrase at 4 o’clock is coincidental, and not intrinsic to the choice of the form leave.
We have seen that the speaker can express a temporal view of the action by using the (be) + . . . ing or (be) going to forms. If such marked forms are inappropriate, the
speaker selects the basic form. In the case of Future Time reference, when the event is in no way dependent upon the speaker, the basic form is appropriate. Such uses are relatively rare, but entirely consistent with all other uses of this form.
4. (be) to
We have not considered this form elsewhere in this book. It is relatively rare in spoken English, but occurs in newspapers, and some relatively formal writing. Here are some examples:
The work is to be completed by the end of June.
The Queen is to visit Canada in October.
There’s to be an enquiry into the whole affair.
The form (be) to also occurs in the remote form:
At that time he did not know he was to be king.
That wasn’t the end of it - worse was to follow.
Uses referring to Past Time provide an insight into the semantic characteristics of the form. Worse followed describes the event factually, and, from the speaker’s point of view, as a remote fact. It is not, however, possible to make a similar transformation of the first sentence: At that time he did not know that he was king.
(be) to describes events which the speaker sees as facts, but as future facts, rather than pure, timeless facts, expressed, as always through the basic form.
With was/were to, in Past Time the events are seen as pure facts. They can, however, be described as future facts, from a point of view in the past. This is exactly the case with At that time . . . in the example. The introductory adverbial, placing the speaker’s temporal point of view decisively at a point in Past Time, means a (be) to form is required by the meaning. With the example Worse followed, or Worse was to follow the difference, though less obvious, is the same; followed states the remote factuality of what happened for the speaker now, was to follow describes the past event factually, from a point of view in Past Time.
The same considerations apply to ’present’ uses of (be) to. Like the basic form, the event is described as fact The distinction is made between future fact - (be) to and ’timeless’ fact - the basic form. Not surprisingly, both forms are relatively rare and the difference between them often small.
Consideration of most ’present’ uses of (be) to, however, reveals that the certainty about the future event is nearly always based on a formal announcement made by some authority which, through experience, is seen as irrevocable, and therefore certain. Events described by (be) to are nearly always based on an announcement of a single, particular event. The basic form is more frequent if the same impersonal force majeure is involved, but based on more regular, general and therefore timeless, information.
We are to leave at 4 suggests a guide or driver has just told me about a particular departure. We leave at four this afternoon, although apparently ’a future fact’, is much more likely to be a reference to the normal timetable.
The basic form and (be) to share a sense of factuality. They differ in that the basic form is associated with timeless factuality, while (be) to is associated with future factuality. Because future factuality is unusual, (be) to forms are rare.
[. . .]
5. will/shall/’ll
We have noted that the essential characteristic of forms containing will/shall/’ll is that they are modal. This means they are essentially grounded in the moment of speaking. They express ideas which may be paraphrased as ’given the circumstances I see at the moment, I consider it is . . . that . . .’.
Both will and shall express the idea of the inevitable connection between two states, one pertaining at the moment of speaking and a second state. If the inevitable connection is a connection in time, will and shall refer to Future Time. The expression of Future Time with will and shall differs from the forms discussed above in its concentration upon the moment of speaking, Now, and in the speaker’s involvement.
With two of the forms we have considered, the speaker sees the event factually. With the two others which include aspectual forms, the speaker interprets future events with reference to purely temporal characteristics. In both the present durative and (be) going to forms, the speaker sees something which pre-dates Now as a reason for the future event. In future forms involving a modal, the emphasis is on the speaker’s judgment at the moment of speaking.
[. . .]
Questions, suggestions and issues to consider
1. One of Lewis’s main themes in his book is that there is always a central meaning to any verb form. Do you agree? For instance, how convincing do you find his argument that the future use of the present progressive for arrangements and plans (I’m seeing him tomorrow) is no different from other uses? Here again is his description of the basic meaning of the present progressive:
the speaker conceptualises the action as occurring between precisely two points in time, one before and one after Now.
Do you feel this covers the meaning adequately? What about the idea of focusing on an activity or of something being in progress, as described in B5? Are these ideas compatible?
Some grammarians would disagree with Lewis, claiming that there are meanings or uses which are mutually incompatible. For example, it is difficult to explain how the Groucho Marks joke in Activity B5.3 in B5 could work if there were not two separate uses of the present perfect.
2. Nevertheless, Lewis does have a point: grammarians often produce lists of meanings for verb forms that become so long as to be meaningless or useless.
Look at the list of ’meanings’ of the present simple in B5. Should we add the newspaper headline mentioned in the reading (Government announces tax reductions) as an extra meaning (referring to past time)? Or should we be looking to reduce these meanings? Is there any way you can rationalise them into one single meaning (or at least fewer meanings), and describe it in terms that are not too general?
3. Section A5 considers (and rejects) will as a candidate for the future tense. But Lewis also considers shall, reflecting the traditional view that will and shall together make up a paradigm for the ’future tense’: I will, we shall, etc. Can you see what is wrong with this notion?