Abstract
<p>This study deals with the present progressive with future time reference. The aim of this paper is to show that the ‘future use’ of the present progressive is, diachronically, subjectified. After identifying the concept of subjectification defined by Traugott (1989, 1995, 2003, 2010) and Traugott &amp; Dasher (2002), I show that the ‘future use’ is more subjective than the use of present ongoing activities, and argue that the ‘future use’ has been modeled in terms of subjectification. Moreover, this paper argues that, although the ‘future use’ does not refer to physically ongoing events, in the ‘future use’ the situation can be viewed as ‘in progress’ cognitively, and proposes a new account of the ‘future use’ based on the framework of Cognitive Grammar, as laid out by Langacker (2008). Thereby, it is shown that the use of present ongoing activities and the ‘future use’ are both based on the same cognitive foundation, and the difference lies in which portion is profiled.</p>
Highlights
As is well known, the present progressive in English can refer to future time
Thereby, it is shown that the use of present ongoing activities and the ‘future use’ are both based on the same cognitive foundation, and the difference lies in which portion is profiled
We have seen that the verbs that occur in the ‘future use’ of the present progressive are not restricted to verbs of motion or movement, that is to say, that verbs of non-motion or non-movement can occur in the ‘future use’ of the present progressive
Summary
The present progressive in English can refer to future time. So far, numerous studies on this ‘future use’ of the present progressive have been made (e.g., Jespersen (1924), Poutsma (1926), Kruisinga (1931), Allen (1966), Leech (1971, 1987, 2004), Goodman (1973), Close (1975), Wekker (1976), Dowty (1977), Huddleston (1977), Smith (1981, 1997), Prince (1982), Quirk et al (1985), Hirtle & Curat (1986), Palmer (1987), Declerck (1991, 2006), Leech & Svartvik (1994, 2002), Biber et al (1999), Huddleston & Pullum (2002), Hundt (2004), Dixon (2005), Nesselhauf (2007), Leech et al (2009), Wada (2009), Bergs (2010), De Wit &Brisard (2014)). Declerck (1991, 2006) and other studies are trying to precisely describe the semantic nature of the ‘future use,’ these works do not take account of approach of subjectification. It is argued here that the ‘future use’ of the present progressive has undergone subjectification. The present paper proposes an analysis of the ‘future use,’ in which this is illustrated, based on the theory of Langacker’s (2008) Cognitive Grammar. Vol 6, No 1; 2016 we offer our concluding remarks
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
