I. ‘Future tense’ forms vs ‘futurish’ forms 343
follows that will (rather than shall) is the normal auxiliary in questions
which involve a first person subject and an agentive verb and which merely
ask for information about the future.
[“Take the 6.33 train.” Ϫ “Fine.] What time will I be in Leeds? (pure future: asking
for information)
What time shall I be in Leeds? (ϭ ‘What time would you like me to be in Leeds?’)
Shall I help you? (offer of service: ‘Would you like me to help you?’)
Will I help you? (ϭ ‘What do you think? Will I help you or not? Guess.)
Mummy, will I be as clever as aunt Emma when I grow up? (pure future)
What time shall I collect you tonight? (ϭ ‘What time would you like me to come?’)
(b) With volitional (intentional) verbs (i. e. verbs referring to a consciously
performed action), ‘will not ϩ nonprogressive nonperfect infinitive’ can
often be understood as expressing a present or post-present refusal. To
avoid such an interpretation, speakers who want to express pure future
tend to use the progressive form of the future tense, which does not yield
an interpretation that has to do with willingness. Similarly, they prefer
to use be going to to express post-present actualization depending on a
present intention.
Mummy, Jane won’t give me back my bow and arrow. (refusal)
He won’t be leaving his house before eight o’clock. (pure future)
He probably won’t leave his house. (ambiguous)
I am not going to leave my house! (present intention)
(c) With volitional verbs, yes/no-questions introduced by ‘will you ϩ nonpro-
gressive nonperfect infinitive’ are normally understood as expressing a re-
quest, an offer or an invitation (unless the intonation renders this kind of
reading unlikely). Such an interpretation is avoided by the use of the pro-
gressive form of the future tense for pure future and by the use of be going
to for future with present intention.
Will you come to the party? (probably a request or invitation)
Will you be coming to the party? (pure future)

Are you going to use this towel? (intention)
Will you come inside? (invitation)
Will you be all right tomorrow? (pure future: nonagentive verb phrase)
Will you have some cocoa? (offer)
Will you please stop shouting? (request)
344 7. Absolute tense forms referring to the post-present
7.7 The progressive future tense (without progressive
meaning)
Post-present time reference can also be expressed by the progressive form of
the future tense. Apart from its basic use as a progressive form with progressive
meaning (ϭ representing a situation as in progress at a future ‘vantage time’),
there is also a special use of the progressive form of the future tense, which
combines the following characteristics: (a) There is no implication of pro-
gressive aspectual meaning; (b) The reference is mostly to ‘pure future’, i. e.
there is no implication of intention, plan or volition; (c) There is usually a
suggestion that the post-present situation will actualize as a matter of routine
or as part of what is (or is expected to be) the normal ‘course of events’.
We will not be using the gymnasium for a couple of weeks [because it is being
refurbished]. (It is only natural that a gymnasium is out of use as long as it is
being refurbished.)
Bill will be driving to London on Thursday. [Why don’t you ask him to deliver the
parcel?] (The sentence implies that Bill will be driving to London anyhow. This
idea Ϫ that his driving to London next Thursday forms part of the expected course
of events Ϫ may be due to the fact that there is a habitual pattern: Bill drives to
London every Thursday. It is also possible, though, that next Thursday is understood
to be the only time in Bill’s life that he will drive to London, but that this trip is
nevertheless simply something that will happen as a matter of course.)
When will you be seeing Rose again? (Because of when, the sentence presupposes
(whether or not correctly) that the addressee will see Rose again. The form will be
seeing is in keeping with this, because it suggests that it can be taken for granted

that the addressee will see Rose again within a contextually ‘reasonable’ period of
time. If Rose is going to the other side of the world to live, that period will quite
possibly be several years, and if she lives in the same town and is a good friend of
the addressee, the period the speaker has in mind will probably be no more than a
few weeks.)
When will Helen be leaving?
The next thing you know he’ll be asking for a pay rise.
II. Remarks on
be going to
345
II. Remarks on
be going to
7.8 ‘Be going to ϩ infinitive’: futurish form or
future tense form
7.8.1 The auxiliary be going to is basically used to express the idea that the
post-present situation is predictable at t
0
because its origin lies in the present
or because there is present evidence that the situation is going to actualize.
That is, ‘be going to ϩ present infinitive’ is basically a ‘futurish form’ (see
7.3.1) rather than a future tense form. However, as noted in 7.3.2, there are
also examples (especially in nonformal English) in which the post-present time
of actualization is more salient than the present (e. g. It is going to rain tomor-
row), in which case the difference between be going to and will is less pro-
nounced: whereas the latter expresses a prediction, be going to is a means of
talking about the future in a more neutral way. In the following examples,
there is little difference in meaning between will and be going to, so that there
seems to be a case for analysing both of them as future tense auxiliaries:
Tomorrow’s weather {will be / is going to be} mild and dry. (Will is used by a
speaker who is in a position to make a prediction, or wants to be heard as making

a prediction, while be going to is used by someone simply making a statement of
fact based on some source such as a prediction.)
Do you think Leeds {will / are going to} beat Crystal Palace in the match tomorrow?
The Prince of Wales {will / is going to} attend the concert next Sunday.
{What’ll / What’s going to} happen to us?
In sum, we will treat be going to as a futurish auxiliary when it expresses the
idea that the post-present situation is predictable at t
0
because its origin lies in
the present or because there is present evidence that the situation is going to
actualize. When this connotation is lacking, and be going to just refers to the
post-present in a neutral way, we will treat it as a future tense auxiliary.
7.8.2 The phrase will be going to can in principle be used as an ‘absolute-
relative tense form’ Ϫ see 2.47. Like the future perfect, it then both establishes
a post-present domain and expresses a relation (in this case: T-posteriority)
in it.
By the time we get there, they will be going to leave. (ϭ ‘it will be the case that they
are going to leave’)
However, when we googled will be going to, we did not find any examples of
this use. On the other hand, we found quite a few examples in which will be
going to simply establishes a post-present domain, i. e. is used as an alternative
to either will or be going to:
346 7. Absolute tense forms referring to the post-present
Ever wondered what the winter weather will be going to be? [If anyone would only
know for sure. So far, we have conflicting messages.] (www)
We just came home and will be going to have some well-deserved sleep. (www)
How many will be going to be switching to this when or if it becomes available to
you? I know damn well I will. (www)
Doubt anyone here will be going to be going to South Africa soon, but if you do,
(and god help South Africa if any of you do go there) they’ll be handy ones to

(www)
[Right at this time, I am not allowed to inform you about details, but] Ϫ I will be
going to ask headquarters. Wait a minute. (www)
This use of will be going to is typical of a (very) informal register and can
presumably not (yet) be considered as Standard English. We will pay no further
attention to it in this book.
7.9 ‘Be going to ϩ infinitive’ as futurish form: general
meaning
As a futurish form, be going to expresses dual time-reference with emphasis
on the present (see 7.3.2). This concern with the present may be of various
kinds, but all of them can be subsumed under the heading of ‘concern with the
present source (origin) of the predicted post-present actualization’.
We use be going to rather than will to express a ‘premeditated intention’. However,
will is the normal auxiliary to express an ‘unpremediated intention’.
7.10 Be going to expressing a present intention
7.10.1 With agentive verb phrases, be going to can be used to express the
idea that the agent has the present intention of doing something in the post-
present. The agent is as a rule the referent of the subject NP in active sentences
and the referent of the NP of the by-PP in passive sentences. However, in
passive sentences without a by-adjunct the agent is implicit.
Cheryl is going to marry Gordon when she has graduated. (reference to Cheryl’s
present intention or decision)
These regulations are going to be abolished by the new government.
These trees are going to be cut down. (agent not specified)
Next year we’re going to employ more workers.
When are you going to speak to him again?
II. Remarks on
be going to
347
7.10.2 In sentences with a first person subject, will (but not shall) can some-

times also be used to represent the future as depending on a present intention.
However, the intention in question is of a different kind from the sort of inten-
tion expressed by I am going to … This difference may not always be 100 %
clear, but in general we can accept the following as a rule:
(a) When the intention is clearly premeditated, i. e. when the speaker has al-
ready made up his mind about what he proposes to do (e. g. when he is
already preparing for it), be going to is the form to be used. Compare:
[I’ve bought a computer.] I’m going to do the paperwork myself in future. (premed-
itated intention)
[I’ve bought a computer.] I’ll do the paperwork myself in future. (In this context,
will is interpreted as fairly volitional. It suggests something like ‘I’ve given up
expecting anyone else to do it properly, so I’ve made up my mind to do the pa-
perwork myself in future’, or ‘OK, I give in, I will do the paperwork myself in fu-
ture’.)
Similarly:
[Why have you written to a solicitor?] Are you going to make a will?
Will you make a will? (interpreted as volitional Ϫ ‘Will you agree to make a
will?’ Ϫ or as having an implicit condition.)
[Why have you written to a solicitor?]
?
Will you make a will? (difficult to interpret
in the given context)
Because of its premeditated intention meaning, be going to can be chosen to
express strong determination:
I’m going to wait for her, even if it means sitting here all night! (The even if-
clause ensures that the whole utterance is understood as conveying strength of
determination; with be going to the speaker is likely to be understood as making
a defiant statement of determination. Will can also be used; if it is not accented it
has more the effect of a statement of objective ‘fact’; if accented it has an effect
similar to that of a toddler stamping his foot.)

I’m going to keep talking to him until he changes his mind. (With be going to this
is a statement of strong determination, with will the effect is more of a calm plan.)
I’m going to get out of here if it kills me! (Will would be somewhat less appropriate
than be going to here because of the element of strong determination expressed in
the conditional clause.)
[I’ve told you before and I’m telling you again:] I’m not going to buy you a dog.
(This expression of strong determination comes close to the expression of a refusal.
With will the sentence would actually
be a refusal because the volition meaning
would come to the fore: will not ϭ ‘am not willing to’.)
(b) Will is the auxiliary to be used when the intention is clearly unpremedi-
tated, i. e. when the subject has only just thought of performing the action,
348 7. Absolute tense forms referring to the post-present
when the action is an immediate and spontaneous reaction to something
that has been said or that has happened. (In this use, will is usually weak-
ened to ’ll in spoken English.)
[“Would you like some biscuits?” Ϫ “Oh, yes. Thank you.] I’ll take one. [I love
custard creams but I’m trying to cut down.]” (unpremediated decision)
[“It’s dark in here.” Ϫ “Don’t worry.] I’ll fetch a torch.” (decision made on the
spur of the moment)
[Look! She’s waving to us.] I’ll go and see what she wants to tell us. (id.)
[“The tap is leaking.”] Ϫ “I’ll have a look.”
In these examples shall could not be substituted for will, because will here
expresses not only unpremeditated intention but also volition (willingness). As
is well-known, the modal idea of willingness is expressed by the modal auxil-
iary will, not by shall. However, in examples which completely lack the idea
of willingness and seem to be more like simple statements (decisions) about
the future, shall is not unacceptable as an alternative to will:
[“Make up your mind!” Ϫ “OK.] I {will / shall} wear the blue shirt.”
[I am fed up with reading. I think] I {will / shall} write some letters now.

[Hmmm, what else to do today? Erm, oh yes, I think] I shall phone Ali this evening
to find out if she is indeed coming up for Easter. (www)
[There are only two podiatrists in this town, one of which is the moron. The other
is his partner.] I think I shall skip my next appointment with him (without calling
ahead of time) and go to somebody in a neighboring town. (www)
7.10.3 As noted in section 7.6.2, yes/no-questions beginning with ‘will you
ϩ nonprogressive nonperfect infinitive’ and involving an agentive verb phrase
are normally understood as requests, offers or invitations rather than as ques-
tions about intentions for future action. The latter are, therefore, more nor-
mally expressed by are you going to? Compare:
Are you going to have a word with Tom? (intention)
Will you have a word with Tom? (easily understood as a request)
We certainly use are you going to? when the intention is premeditated.
[You haven’t changed into your suit yet.] Aren’t you going to attend the meeting?
The past tense of be going to carries the implicature of nonactualization of the poste-
rior situation.
7.10.4 Because of the connotation of premeditation, an assertion using is/are
going to usually implies a strong expectation that the intention (plan, decision)
II. Remarks on
be going to
349
will be carried out. In this respect it differs from the past tense forms was/
were going to, which are most often used in contexts implying nonfulfilment
of the intention:
I’m going to throw away these papers. (premeditated intention; fulfilment is expected)
He was going to throw these papers away, [but I told him we might need them again
some day].
I was just going to lock the door [when someone tapped on it].
I was going to attend the meeting tomorrow. (strongly suggests that I will not go
there after all)

When the idea of nonfulfilment of the past intention is not induced by the
context, it still often arises as an implicature. This implicature has to do with
the Gricean Maxim of Relation (Relevance). If, at a certain time in the past,
the subject had the intention of doing something later, then there are three
logical possibilities as regards the time of actualization: the situation was
intended to take place either before, at or after t
0
. In the first two cases,
fulfilment of the intention means that the situation takes place before t
0
or at
t
0
. In that case the speaker will normally represent the situation as actualizing
or as having actualized (i. e. as factual) by using the present or the past tense,
respectively. If he does not do this but refers to the intention instead (by using
was/were going to) this will have the effect of suggesting that the actualization
of the situation cannot be referred to because it did not take place or is not
taking place as expected. If it is the third logical possibility that is at play, i. e.
the time of actualization of the intended situation is not before or at t
0
but
after t
0
, then in the unmarked case, the speaker will represent the intention as
a present intention (e. g. I’m going to attend the meeting tomorrow) rather
than as a past one (e. g. I was going to attend the meeting tomorrow). All this
is in keeping with the Maxim of Relation (Relevance) since, other things being
equal, statements about the present are more relevant than statements about
the past. If, in a nonpast context, the speaker explicitly locates an intention in

the past by using was going to, this can only mean that he thinks the intention
is (or may be) no longer valid, i. e. that it will not (or may not) be carried out.
The above explanation concerns the use of was going to in independent
clauses. When it is used in an ‘intensional’ context (such as indirect reported
speech or free indirect speech),
2
the idea of nonfulfilment only arises if it is
2. An intensional context (or ‘opaque context’) is one in which the reference is not to the
real world but to an alternative (e. g. imaginary) world. Such a context is created by
(amongst other things) ‘intensional verbs’ (‘verbs of propositional attitude’) like want,
expect, believe, think, imagine, etc. Clauses that form part of an intensional context
receive an ‘opaque’ (‘de dicto’) interpretation, i. e. their truth is not evaluated in relation
to the real world but in relation to the alternative world referred to.