Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:06:56.350Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Rena Torres Cacoullos and
James A. Walker
Rena Torres Cacoullos*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
James A. Walker*
Affiliation:
York University
*
Torres Cacoullos, Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, The Pennsylvania State University, 231 Burrowes Building, University Park, PA 16802 [rena@psu.edu]
Walker, Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada [jamesw@yorku.ca]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use the variationist method to elucidate the expression of future time in English, examining multiple grammaticalization in the same domain (will and going to). Usage patterns show that the choice of form is not determined by invariant semantic readings such as proximity, certainty, willingness, or intention. Rather, particular instances of each general construction occupy lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic niches. While putative differences in meaning are largely neutralized in discourse, grammaticalization paths are reflected in particular constructions of different degrees of lexical specificity, which bear different nuances of meaning or tenacious patterns of distribution inherited from once-meaningful associations. We conclude that collocations contribute to the shape of grammatical variation.

Keywords

variationfutureEnglishcollocationconstructiongrammaticalization path

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , June 2009, pp. 321 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 by Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aaron, Jessi E. 2006. Variation and change in Spanish future temporal expression. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico dissertation.Google Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 1997. Future in Present-day English: Corpus-based evidence on the rivalry of expressions. ICAME Journal 21. 7–19.Google Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 2005. Expressions of future in present-day English: A corpus-based approach. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Binnick, Ronald. 1971. Will and be going to. Chicago Linguistic Society 7. 40–53.Google Scholar
Blas Arroyo, José Luis. 2008. The variable expression of future tense in Peninsular Spanish: The present (and future) of inflectional forms in the Spanish spoken in a bilingual region. Language Variation and Change 20. 85–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1. 1–14.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 1997. The English tense-system as an epistemic category: The case of futurity. Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning: Proceedings of the bi-annual ICLA meeting in Albuquerque, July 1996, ed. by Sweetser, Eve, Lee, Kidong, and Verspoor, Marolijn, 271–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brisard, Frank. 2001. Be going to: An exercise in grounding. Journal of Linguistics 37. 251–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative: Consequences for the nature of constructions. Complex sentences in grammar and discourse: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson, ed. by Bybee, Joan and Noonan, Michael, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. The evolution of language from pre-language, ed. by Givón, Talmy and Malle, Bertram, 109–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82. 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2008. Grammaticization: Implications for a theory of language. Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, ed. by Guo, Jiansheng, Lieven, Elena, Budwig, Nancy, Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Nakamura, Keiko, and Özçaliskan, Seyda, 345–56. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Pagliuca, William. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. Papers from the seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano, 109–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere; and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Cacoullos, Rena Torres. 2009. The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. Formulaic language, vol. 1: Distribution and historical change, ed. by Corrigan, Roberta L., Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouali, Hamid, and Wheatley, Kathleen, 187–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Richard. 1993. Ambiguous agreement, functional compensation, and nonspecific tú in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation and Change 5. 305–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle (ed.) 2001. Grammaticalization: A critical assessment. (Special issue of Language Sciences 23).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny. 2005. Syntactic variation and spoken language. Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, ed. by Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen P., 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2009. The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, to appear.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1984. Temporal distance: Remoteness distinctions in tense-aspect systems. Explanations for language universals, ed. by Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard, and Dahl, Östen, 105–22. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Danchev, Andrei, and Kytö, Merja. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. Studies in Early Modern English, ed. by Kastovsky, Dieter, 59–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirkanian, Louisette, and Sankoff, David. 1985. Le futur simple et le futur périphrastique dans le français parlé. Les tendances dynamiques du français parlé à Montréal, ed. by Lemieux, Monique and Cedergren, Henrietta, 189–204. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20. 29–62.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1976. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5. 25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for Case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Ernmon and Harms, Robert, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1989. Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13. 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66. 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freed, Alice. 1994. The form and function of questions in informal dyadic conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 21. 621–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Charles C. 1927. The expression of the future. Language 3. 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, Julie, and Savasir, Iskender. 1985. On the use of will and gonna: Toward a description of activity-types for child language. Discourse Processes 8. 143–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1976. Lexical structure in syntax and semantics. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1989. Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25. 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedin, Eva. 2000. Future marking in conditional and temporal clauses in Greek. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, ed. by Dahl, Östen, 329–49. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 575–601. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. Approaches to grammaticalization, ed. by Traugott, Elisabeth C. and Heine, Bernd, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elisabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1964. The English verb: Form and meanings. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1968. The English verb: Form and meanings. 2nd edn. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1990 [1978]. Morphology and universals in syntactic change: Evidence from medieval and Modern Greek. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Historical linguistics. The handbook of linguistics, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Rees-Miller, Janie, 105–29. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Klinge, Alex. 1993. The English modal auxiliaries: From lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 29. 315–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2001. Frequency, iconicity, categorization: Evidence from emerging modals. In Bybee & Hopper, 309–35.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1947. La nature des procès dites analogiques. Acta Linguistica 5. 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45. 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972a. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972b. The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the inner city, 354–405. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics, ed. by Baugh, John and Sherzer, Joel, 28–53. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2004. Quantitative reasoning in linguistics. Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 1, 2nd edn., ed. by Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J., and Trudgill, Peter, 6–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Cohen, Paul, Robins, Clarence; and Lewis, John. 1968. A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. (Cooperative research report 3288, vol. 1.) Philadelphia: US Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Labov, William, and Waletzky, Joshua. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Essays on the verbal and visual arts, ed. by Helm, June, 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1. 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1971. Meaning and the English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997. The spread of the going-to future in written English: A corpusbased investigation into language change in progress. Language history and linguistic modeling, ed. by Hickey, Raymond and Puppel, Stanislaw, 1537–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1968. The inflectional paradigm as an occasional determinant of sound change. Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 21–64. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1973–74. New problems in Romance interfixation (1): The velar insert in the present tense (with an excursus on -zer/-zir verbs). Romance Philology 27. 304–55.Google Scholar
McElhinny, Bonnie S. 1993. Copula and auxiliary contraction in the speech of White Americans. American Speech 68. 371–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John. 1992. Typological discourse analysis: Quantitative approaches to the study of linguistic function. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1994. Intuitive meanings and technical definitions: An analysis of will and gonna. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, ms.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1998. Be going to and will: A monosemous account. English Language and Linguistics 2. 223–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1965. A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1974. The English verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1983. Future time reference in the conditional protasis: A comment on Comrie. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3. 241–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1990. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 2002. Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pappas, Panayiotis A. 2001. The microcosm of a morphological change: Variation in thelō + infinitive futures and ēthela + infinitive counterfactuals in Early Modern Greek. Diachronica 18. 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1992. The inherent variability of the French subjunctive. Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics, ed. by Laeufer, Christiane and Morgan, Terrell A., 235–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Malvar, Elisabete. 2007. Elucidating the transition period in linguistic change: The expression of the future in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus 19. 121–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1999. The grammaticalization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11. 315–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2001. African American English in the diaspora: Tense and aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Turpin, Danielle. 1999. Does the FUTUR have a future in (Canadian) French? Probus 11. 133–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Walker, James A.; and Malcolmson, Rebecca. 2006. An English ‘like no other‘? Language contact and change in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51. 185–213.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey; and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of contemporary English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Roy, Joseph. 2007. Peering into the future: The emergence of going to in the 18th century. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 36, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Royster, Jane F., and Steadman, John M.. 1923/1968. The ‘going to’ future. Manly anniversary studies in languages and literature, 394–403. Freeport, NY: Books for Library Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988a. Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick J., 140–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1988b. Variable rules. Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik: An international handbook of the science of language and society, ed. by Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, and Mattheier, Klaus J., 984–97. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali; and Smith, Eric. 2005. GoldVarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Ottawa: Department of Mathematics, University of Ottawa, and Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, and Thibault, Pierrette. 1981. Weak complementarity: Tense and aspect in Monteal French. Syntactic change: Natural language studies, ed. by Johns, Brenda B. and Strong, David R., 205–16. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Brown, Penelope. 1976. The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52. 631–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedano, Mercedes. 1994. El futuro morfológico y la expresión ir a + infinitivo en el español hablado de Venezuela. Verba: Anuario gale go de fìloloxia 21. 225–40.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen, and Terrell, Tracy. 1989. Notas sobre la expresión de futuridad en el español del Caribe. Hispanic Linguistics 2. 191–208.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan Isaac. 1997. The origins of grammaticizable notions: Beyond the individual mind. The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 5: Expanding the contexts, ed. by Slobin, Dan Isaac, 1–39. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smirniotopoulos, Jane C., and Joseph, Brian D.. 1998. Syntax versus the lexicon: Incorporation and compounding in Modern Greek. Journal of Linguistics 34. 447–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1997. The parameter of aspect. 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31. 295–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 1997. Obsolescence in the English perfect? Evidence from Samana English. American Speech 72. 33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002. Comparative sociolinguistics. Handbook of language variation and change, ed. by Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie, 729–63. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006a. ‘So cool, right?’: Canadian English entering the 21st century. Canadian English in a global context (Special issue of Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51), ed. by Avery, Peter, D'Arcy, Alexandra, Gold, Elaine, and Rice, Keren, 309–31.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006b. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and Denis, Derek. 2008. Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging, teen language and linguistic change. American Speech 83. 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation. Studies in Language 26. 125–64.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Traugott, Elizabeth C., 313–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google ScholarPubMed
Toller, Thomas Northcote. 1921. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 1999. Variation and grammaticalization in progressives: Spanish -ndo constructions. Studies in language 23. 25–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2000. Grammaticization, synchronic variation, and language contact: A study of Spanish progressive -ndo constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2001. From lexical to grammatical to social meaning. Language in Society 30. 443–78.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2009. Variation and grammaticisation: The emergence of an aspectual opposition. Selected papers from the 4th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 4), University of Cyprus, 17–19 June 2007, ed. by Tsiplakou, Stavroula, Karyolemou, Marilena, and Pavlou, Pavlos, 215–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, and Schwenter, Scott A.. 2005. Towards an operational notion of subjectification. Berkeley Linguistics Society 31. 47–58.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, and Walker, James A.. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse: A variationist study of that. Linguistics 47. 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 2002. Non-categorical differences between American and British English: Some corpus evidence. Studies of mid-Atlantic English, ed. by Modiano, Marko, 37–58. Gävle: University of Gävle Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65. 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. Subjectivity and subjectivisation, ed. by Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 624–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Dasher, Richard. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Heine, Bernd. 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. 2007. Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19. 101–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Herk, Gerard, and Poplack, Shana. 2003. Rewriting the past: Bare verbs in the Ottawa Repository of Early African American Correspondence. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 18. 231–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 1995. Subjectification, syntax, and communication. Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, ed. by Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan, 103–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, Frederic Theodor. 1970. An historical syntax of the English language, part 1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Walker, James A. 2000. Prosodic optimality and variability in English auxiliaries. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 105–19.Google Scholar
Walker, James A. 2001. Using the past to explain the present: Tense and temporal reference in Early African American English. Language Variation and Change 13. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, James A. 2007. ‘There's bears back there’: Plural existentials and vernacular universals in (Quebec) English. English World-Wide 28. 147–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, James A., Poplack, Shana; and Cacoullos, Rena Torres. 2004. Looking into the future in English and French. The role of minority status in language contact and change: The past and the future in Canada. Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, University of Newcastle, UK.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William; and Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for historical linguistics, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman. 1976. The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Whyte, John. 1949. A personal adventure into the German and English future. NeuZs I.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 1998. On the origins of African American Vernacular English—A creolist perspective, part 2: Linguistic features. Diachronica 15. 99–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar