Personality Traits and Reasons to Leave Country in Serbian University Students

In many languages, future time reference can be conveyed in more than one grammaticized way. An example is English, which uses will and be going to. These two forms make different semantic and pragmatic contributions, and the source of the contrast is a matter of debate. For example, Copley (2009) argues that both will and be going to have a modal component, but be going to also contains progressive aspect. Klecha et al (2008) and Klecha (2011) also posit modality for both forms, but argue that will introduces obligatory modal subordination; crucially for them, be going to does not contain the progressive. In this paper, we address the following three questions: (a) Do any other languages show a contrast between will-like and be going to-like futures? (b) Is there cross-linguistic support for the proposal that some futures contain progressive aspect? (c) Can cross-linguistic data shed light on the debate about English?Our answer to all three questions is ‘yes’. We show that (a) Gitksan (Tsimshianic) displays a contrast between will-like and be going to-like futures; (b) their distribution provides support for progressive aspect in the latter type of futures; and (c) Gitksan contributes cross-linguistic evidence to the debate about the nature of futures in English. We provide an analysis that combines elements of both Copley’s (2009) and Klecha’s (2011) accounts. More generally, we argue that different future constructions across languages are derived by combining at least the following three building blocks: prospective aspect, a modal, and the progressive.

show abstract

“…17 For the idea that future-denoting elements need to be syntactically licensed, see Todorović (2021b).…”

Section: Dimmentioning

confidence: 99%