The grammaticalisation of the gaan + infinitive future in spoken Dutch and Flemish. Carol Fehringer
‘Go’ as a future tense expression (FTE) Only lexical/ not FTE German *Ich gehe in die Stadt gehen
FTE restricted
Dutch Wat gaat hij zeggen? ?Ik ga naar de stad gaan
FTE unrestricted
English I’m going to go into town
Grammaticalisation [I am going] [to marry Bill] Lexical go = I am going somewhere in order to marry B Originally animate subject, proximate future reference To indicates a purpose/goal (= intentional meaning)
[I am going to marry Bill]
[going to] = unit
Grammatical go = FTE competing with will Hopper and Traugott (2003)
Grammaticalisation – semantic bleaching • Inanimate subjects:
The tree is going to lose its leaves • Motion verbs come and go: I’m going to go into town tomorrow Grammatically acceptable. But is this reflected in actual usage? How far down the grammaticalisation path is the gaanfuture in Dutch?
Frequency of gaan as an FTE in NL and VL • Examine the relative proportions of the two syntactic FTEs gaan versus zullen in contexts where the two can potentially vary. • Lexical restrictions on gaan. Examine FTEs in separate groups determined by observed behaviour:
Agent verbs: Non-agent verbs: Motion verbs: hebben, zijn
doen, zoeken, bellen worden, krijgen, zien, gebeuren komen, gaan
• Total FTEs in sub-corpus = 1105
Gaan versus zullen in NL 400 350 300 250
GAAN
200
ZULLEN
150 100 50 0
AGENT
NON-AGENT
KOMEN
Gaan versus zullen in VL 300
250
200
gaan
150
zullen 100
50
0
AGENT
NON-AGENT
MOTION
HEBBEN/ZIJN
Syntactic constraints on gaan as FTE Following quantitative variationist method of Poplack & Tagliamonte (2000), Torres-Cacoullos & Walker (2009), Tagliamonte (2013). • • • • • • •
Clause type (main versus subordinate) Grammatical person (1st, 2nd, 3rd) Subject type (animate vs non-animate) Proximity of future reference (proximate ≤ 6 mths) Negation Red = significant in all Interrogatives groups in NL and VL (p<0.05) Co-occurrence with temporal adverb
And in addition, co-occurrence with particles
Blue = significant in only some groups
Main vs. subordinate clauses NL 350
300
70%
250 200 150
30% 94%
100 50
6%
0 main
sub AGENT
Agent: χ2(1)=20.34, p<0.001
100 90 80 70 60 50 gaan 40 zullen 30 20 10 0
80%
gaan
65%
zullen
20%
35%
main
sub
NON-AGENT
Non-agent: χ2(1)=32.05, p<0.001
Main vs. subordinate clauses VL 120
200 180
83%
51% 100
160 140
49%
80
120 100
gaan
80
zullen
60 40
96%
17%
60
gaan zullen
40
81%
20
20
4%
0
19% 0
Main
Subordinate AGENT
Agent: χ2(1)=5.35, p=0.021
Main
Subordinate NON-AGENT
Non-Agent: χ2(1)=7.14, p=0.008
Main vs. subordinate clauses VL 80 70
51%
300
49%
58%
250
60
200
50 150
40
gaan
73%
30
32%
gaan zullen
zullen 100
20
27%
10 0
58%
50
42%
0 main
sub MOTION
Motion: χ2(1)=4.84, p =0.028
main
sub HEBBEN/ZIJN
Hebben/zijn: χ2(1)=15.20, p<0.001
Grammatical person in NL 56%
60
250 62%
80%
50
200
44%
40
150
38%
30
gaan
100
93%
zullen
50
gaan 20
zullen
20%
10
7% 0
0
1st person
3rd person
AGENT
Agent: χ2(1)=25.06, p<0.001
1st person
3rd person
NON-AGENT
Non-agent:χ2(1)=8.04, p=0.005
Grammatical person in VL 140
300
80
76%
120
70
100
60
94%
80
60 24%
zullen
40
250
43%
200
50
gaan
69%
57%
65%
40
gaan
30
35%
150
31%
gaan zullen
zullen 100
20
20
6%
0
50
10
30% 0
0
1st person
3rd person
70%
1person
AGENT
Agent: χ2(1)=9.65, p=0.002 (Motion: χ2(1)=3.36, p=0.067)
3 person
NON-AGENT
1 person
3 person
HEBBEN/ZIJN
Non-agent: χ2(1)=7.38, p=0.007 Hebben/zijn: χ2(1)= 24.05, p<0.001 Persistence? Hoppper (1991)
Animacy of subject 40 35 30
54%
59% 46%
250
41%
25 20
71%
200
15
gaan
10
zullen
5
150
29%
100
0
animate
non-animate
WORDEN/KOMEN
χ2(1) = 0.17, p= 0.679 (VL)
50
49% 51%
0
Also non significant:
Worden/komen (NL): χ2 (1) = 0.15, p= 0.694
animate
non-animate ZIJN
χ2(1) = 10.83, p= 0.001
Gaan (VL): χ2 (1) = 2.62, p= 0.105
Persistence?
gaan zullen
Proximity of future reference only with non-agent verbs NL
VL
120
90
74%
100
45%
70
80
60
74%
50
60
26%
40
63% 20
55%
80
gaan
40
zullen
30 20
37%
gaan zullen
26%
10
0 Proximate
Non-Prox
NON-AGENT
NL: χ2(1)=15.09, p<0.001
0
Proximate
Non-Prox
NON-AGENT
VL: χ2(1)=15.34, p<0.001 Persistence? Why not hebben/zijn?
Gaan in declarative sentences (a feature of NL?) Number of interrogatives too small to test in all categories other than Agent. Only significant in NL. 78% 300 250 200 150 100
66%
gaan
22%
34%
50 0 Interrogative
Declarative AGENT
χ2(1)=7.31, p=0.007
zullen
Particles Most frequent particles in the sub-corpus:
maar
eens even
ook
dan wel
nou
toch
Particles in NL 300
70
84%
250
60
200
50
85%
45%
40
150
57% 100
55%
gaan
43%
gaan
30
zullen
16%
50
10
0
zullen
20
15%
0 Particle
No particle AGENT
Agent: χ2(1)=14.68, p<0.001
Particle
No particle NON-AGENT
Non-Agent: χ2(1)=43.05, p<0.001
Particles in VL 200
120
91%
180
65%
100
160
140
80
120 100
gaan
80 60 40 20
zullen
9%
gaan
70%
zullen
40
68% 32%
35%
60
20
30%
0
0
Particle
No particle
AGENT
Agent: χ2(1)=18.10, p<0.001
Particle
No particle NON-AGENT
Non-Agent: χ2(1)=20.76, p<0.001
Particles in VL 90
180
68%
80
160
70
140
60
120
50
71%
40%
100
66%
32%
40
30
60%
gaan
80
zullen
60
34%
20
40
10
20
0
0 particle
no particle MOTION
Motion: χ2(1)=17.27, p<0.001
gaan zullen
29%
particle
no particle
HEBBEN/ZIJN
Hebben/zijn:χ2(1)=5.12, p=0.024
Grammaticalisation path of ‘go’ FTE Ger
NL
VL
Eng highly-grammaticalised ‘go’
lexical ‘go’ Restricted to certain verb groups. No co-occurrence with gaan
Some persistence in proximate TR
Wider range of verb groups. Some persistence in proximate TR, person and animacy of subject
No restriction to verb groups.
No persistence.
Commonalities E, NL, VL: gaan/go in subordinate clauses zullen/will in first person Feature of NL and VL:
zullen co-occurring with particles
Selected references Beheydt, Griet. 2005. Future time reference English and Dutch compared. In Nicole Delbecque, Johan van der Auwera, Dirk Geeraerts (eds.), Dirk Perspectives on variation: sociolinguistic, historical, comparative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 251-274. Fehringer, Carol & Karen P. Corrigan. In press. The rise of the going to future in Tyneside English. Evidence for grammaticalisation. English World Wide. Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: a usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticisation. In Elisabeth Closs (ed.), Approaches to grammaticalisation, vol. 1, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 17-36. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalisation. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kraaikamp, Margot. 2009. Dat gaat anders worden! Gaan als hulpwerkwoord van de toekomende tijd. Onze Taal 78. Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2010. “The Development of Future Time Expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of Forms or Change in Discourse?” English Language and Linguistics 14: 163–186. Poplack, Shana, and Sali Tagliamonte. 2000. “The Grammaticalization of Going to in (African American) English”. Language Variation and Change: 11. 315–342. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. “BE GOING TO Versus WILL/SHALL. Does Syntax Matter?” Journal of English Linguistics 31: 295–323. Ten Cate, Abraham P. 1991. Bemerkungen zum deutschen und niederländischen Futur. In Eberhard Klein (ed.), Betriebslinguistik und Linguistikbetrieb. Linguistisches Kolloquium 24. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 23-31. Torres-Cacoullos, Rena, and James A. Walker. 2009. “The Present of the English Future: Grammatical Variation and Collocations in Discourse”. Language 85: 321–354.
