1. No category

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.