Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:01:34.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Be going to and will: talking about the future using embodied experience*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

ANDREA TYLER  and
HANA JAN
ANDREA TYLER
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
HANA JAN
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English speakers expressing futurity have the choice of two primary verb forms, will or be going to (BGT). Previous studies establish that BGT has multiple meanings not associated with will. Langacker (1987) rejected a metaphoric analysis of BGT (time is motion) as inadequate and offered a binary feature analysis. Brisard (2001) expanded on this analysis and argued that manipulating the configurations of binary features explains the semantic differences between will and BGT. However, Brisard’s analysis overlooks the semantic overlap among will, BGT, and the simple present. Moreover, it does not provide a framework that treats will and BGT as part of the larger English modal verb system. Finally, it lacks a persuasive explanation of how the meanings associated with will versus BGT arose. We address these gaps by proposing a polysemy-based explanation that emphasizes invited inferences (e.g., Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca, 1994) and embodied experience; a particularly novel aspect of the analysis is that all the meanings of BGT are related straightforwardly to components of the human walk cycle. Further, we argue that the shared future meaning of will and BGT represent inter-lexical polysemy (Evans, 2015b), thus providing additional evidence for the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (LCCM).

Keywords

Be going tofuturewillembodied experience
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 412 - 445
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Bergen, B. (2012). Louder than words: the new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brisard, F. (1997). The English tense-system as an epistemic category: the case of futurity. In Verspoor, M., Lee, K. D., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning: proceedings of the Bi-annual ICLA Meeting in Albuquerque, July 1995 (pp. 271–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brisard, F. (2001). Be going to: an exercise in grounding. Journal of Linguistics, 37(2), 251–285.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A. (2009). The present of the English future: grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language, 85(2), 321–354.Google Scholar
Catasso, N. (2012). Where is be going to going to go? A generative proposal between diachrony and synchrony. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 90–129.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: an ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2004). The structure of time: language, meaning, and temporal cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. (2010). From the spatial to the non-spatial: the ‘state’ lexical concepts of in, on, and at. In Evans, V. & Chilton, P. (Eds.), Language, cognition & space (pp. 215–248). London: Equinox Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2014). The language myth: why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2015a). The crucible of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2015b). A unified account of polysemy within LCCM theory. Lingua, 157, 100–123.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. (2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language, 84(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: primary metaphors and primary scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1989). Be going to and will: a pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics, 25, 291–317.Google Scholar
Hoad, T. F. (1986). The concise Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. (1999). Metaphor vs. conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: the case of see . In Hiraga, M., Sinha, C., & Wilcox, S. (Eds.), Cultural, typological and psychological perspectives in cognitive linguistics (pp. 155–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinge, A. (1993). The English modal auxiliaries: from lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 315–357.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1996) Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in context. Language, 48(4), 907–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1971). Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mahpeykar, N., & Tyler, A. (2015). A principled cognitive linguistics account of English phrasal verbs with up and out. Language and Cognition, 7(1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Nicolle, S. (1997). A relevance-theoretic account of be going to . Linguistics, 33, 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaev, V. (2013). Za-perfectives of Russian motion verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. (1974). The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pérez, A. (1990), Time in motion: grammaticalisation of the ‘be going to construction’ in English. La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 49–64.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2003). Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics, 31(4), 295–323.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E., & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456–488). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar