Abstract
This paper aims at reexamining the notion of commitment through a case study: the comparison of the periphrases be going to and aller + inf. in contemporary English and French in a variety of texts and syntactic environments. Three cases are examined: the occurrence of the two periphrases in conditional si / if-clauses, their use in narratives and their predictive use in news texts. This study is based on authentic translated data drawn from literary and journalistic texts and relies on an enunciative definition of commitment: commitment is defined as a ‘direct mode of enunciation’ where the speaker is the subjective origin validating or contemplating the future validation of the propositional content. The three cases under scrutiny show that be going to and aller + inf. are not strictly equivalent and I argue that the absence of equivalence can be linked to the fact that they behave differently as far as commitment is concerned.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
