Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 8, 2016

Reading the intentions of be going to. On the subjectification of future markers

  • Sara Budts EMAIL logo and Peter Petré
From the journal Folia Linguistica

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed corpus-based account of the formal and functional changes that be going to underwent in Late Modern English. Despite be going to’s popularity, such studies remain rare for this period, in which the construction’s grammaticalization went through a second phase. Our analysis shows that the first half of the eighteenth century witnessed a shift from intention to prediction, which originated in contexts with third person subjects. Reporting the intention of others generally involves a certain amount of guesswork, which eventually resulted in the creation of an additional, epistemic layer of prediction, reinforced by the gradual extension of be going to to express non-imminent future situations. It is argued that this shift involves an increase in subjectivity, as the emphasis gradually moved away from the grammatical subject to the speaker: what mattered was no longer the intentions of the subject, but the knowledge of the speaker about them. Attention is also drawn to parallel developments in other future markers, particularly will. Interestingly, and in spite of significant differences, each of these went through an intermediary stage that involved past tense uses with reference to a future in the past, which was already known to the speaker.

Acknowledgements

First authorship is shared for this paper. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The research reported on in this paper is part of the Mind-Bending Grammars project funded by the ERC Horizon 2020 programme (Project ID 639008; http://www.uantwerpen.be/mind-bending-grammars/).

References

Agresti, Alan. 2010. Analysis of ordinal categorical data, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.10.1002/9780470594001Search in Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile. 1968. Mutations of linguistic categories. In Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium, 83–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1987. The semantic development of past tense modals in English and other languages. Paper presented at International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL) 8, Lille, 31 August–4 September.Search in Google Scholar

Cuyckens, Hubert, Kristin Davidse & Lieven Vandelanotte. 2010. Introduction. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 1–28. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226102Search in Google Scholar

Danchev, Andrei & Merja Kytö. 1994. The construction be going to+infinitive in Early Modern English. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in early modern English, 59–77. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. London & New York: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(3). 601–633.10.1353/lan.2012.0056Search in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Jukka Tyrkkö. 2011. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_0.htm (accessed 12 October 2013.)Search in Google Scholar

Disney, Steve. 2009a. A domain matrix view of the uses and development of BE ‘going to’ + infinitive. Linguistics & Language Teachings 3. 25–44.Search in Google Scholar

Disney, Steve. 2009b. The grammaticalisation of ‘be going to’. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 63–82.Search in Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew. 2012. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, 52–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

Goossens, Louis. 1982. On the development of the modals and of the epistemic function in English. In Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the 5th international conference on historical linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 21), 74–84. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.21.12gooSearch in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129.10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06griSearch in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613463Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.7Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. 2010. Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCMBE-RELEASE-1/index.htm (accessed 15 April 2014.)Search in Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110820980Search in Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania. 2004. Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania & Bernd Heine. 1995. The proximative. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC) 4, Albuquerque, 24–28 July.Search in Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 101–124. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko. 2010. (Inter)subjectification in the domain of modality and mood – Concepts and cross-linguistic realities. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 385–430. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226102.4.385Search in Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2007. The spread of the progressive and its ‘future’ use. English Language and Linguistics 11(1). 191–207.10.1017/S1360674306002152Search in Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2010. The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: redistribution of forms or change in discourse? English Language and Linguistics 14(2). 163–186.10.1017/S1360674310000043Search in Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2012. Mechanisms of language change in a functional system: The recent semantic evolution of English future time expressions. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2(1). 83–132.10.1075/jhl.2.1.06nesSearch in Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2012. Notions of intersubjectivity. English Text Construction 5(1). 53–76.10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuySearch in Google Scholar

Pérez, Aveline. 1990. Time in motion. Grammaticalisation of the ‘be going to construction’ in English. La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics 3. 49–64.Search in Google Scholar

Pertejo, Paloma Nuñez. 1999. ‘Be going to’ + infinitive: Origin and development. Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica 71(2). 135–142.10.1080/003932799750041687Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65. 31–53. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.2307/414841Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. (Inter) subjectivity and (inter) subjectification: a reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 29–71. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226102.1.29Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012. On the Persistence of Ambiguous Linguistic Context over Time: Implications for Corpus Research on Micro-Changes. In Joybrato Mukherjee & Magnus Hüber (eds.), Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description, 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401207713_019Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elisabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486500Search in Google Scholar

Van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124.10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79Search in Google Scholar

Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries. Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511752995Search in Google Scholar

Wischer, Ilse. 2008. Will and shall as markers of modality and/or futurity in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 42. 125–143.10.1515/FLIH.2008.125Search in Google Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra. 2000. The role of quantity implicatures in the grammaticalisation of would. Language Sciences 22(1). 27–61.10.1016/S0388-0001(99)00006-6Search in Google Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra. 2006. Interfaces with English aspect. Diachronic and empirical studies (Studies in Language Companion Series 82). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.82Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-11-08
Published in Print: 2016-11-01

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/flih-2016-0001/pdf
Scroll to top button