Английского

§ 7. Observing combinations with will in stylistically neutral collo-
cations, as the first step of our study we note the adverbials of time 
used with this construction. The environmental expressions, as well 
as implications, of future time do testify that from this point of 
view there is no difference between will and shall, both of them 
equally conveying the idea of the future action expressed by the 
adjoining infinitive. 
As our next step of inferences, noting the types of the infinitive-
environmental semantics of will in contrast to the contextual back-
ground of shall, we state that the first person will-future expresses 
an action which is to be performed by the speaker for choice, of his 
own accord. But this meaning of free option does not at all imply 
that the speaker actually wishes to perform the action, or else that 
he is determined to perform it, possibly in defiance of some con-
trary force. The exposition of the action shows it as being not 
bound by any extraneous circumstances or by any special influence 
except the speaker's option; this is its exhaustive characteristic. In 
keeping with this, the form of the will-future in question may be 
tentatively called the "voluntary future". 
On the other hand, comparing the environmental characteristics of 
shall with the corresponding environmental background of will, it 
is easy to see that, as different from will, the first person shall ex-
presses a future process that will be realised without the will of the 
speaker, irrespective of his choice. In accord with the exposed 
meaning, the shall-form of the first person future should be re-
ferred to as the "non-voluntary", i.e. as the weak member of the 
corresponding opposition. 
Further observations of the relevant textual data show that some 
verbs constituting a typical environment of the 

---

149
non-voluntary shall-future (i.e. verbs inherently alien to the expres-
sion of voluntary actions) occur also with the voluntary will, but in 
a different meaning, namely, in the meaning of an active action the 
performance of which is freely chosen by the speaker. Cf.: Your ar-
rival cannot have been announced to his Majesty. I will see about it 
(B. Shaw). 
In the given example the verb see has the active meaning of ensur-
ing something, of intentionally arranging matters connected with 
something, etc. 
Likewise, a number of verbs of the voluntary will-environmental 
features (i.e. verbs presupposing the actor's free will in performing 
the action) combine also with the non-voluntary shall, but in the 
meaning of an action that will take place irrespective of the will of 
the speaker. Cf.: I'm very sorry, madam, but I'm going to faint. I 
shall go off, madam, if I don't have something (K. Mansfield). 
Thus, the would-be same verbs are in fact either homonyms, or 
else lexico-semantic variants of the corresponding lexemes of the 
maximally differing characteristics. 
At the final stage of our study the disclosed characteristics of the 
two first-person futures are checked on the lines of transforma-
tional analysis. The method will consist not in free structural ma-
nipulations with the analysed constructions, but in the textual 
search for the respective changes of the auxiliaries depending on 
the changes in the infinitival environments. 
Applying these procedures to the texts, we note that when the con-
struction of the voluntary will-future is expanded (complicated) by 
a syntactic part re-modelling the whole collocation into one ex-
pressing an involuntary action, the auxiliary will is automatically 
replaced by shall. In particular, it happens when the expanding 
elements convey the meaning of supposition or Uncertainty. Cf.: 
Give me a goddess's work to do; and I will do it (B. Shaw). → I 
don't know what I shall do with Barbara (B. Shaw). Oh, very well, 
very well: I will write another prescription (B. Shaw). → I shall 
perhaps write to your mother (K. Mansfield). 
Thus, we conclude that within'the system of the English future 
tense a peculiar minor category is expressed which affects only the 
forms of the first person. The category is constituted by the opposi-
tion of the forms will + Infinitive and shall + Infinitive expressing, 
respectively, the voluntary 

---

150
future and the non-voluntary future. Accordingly, this category 
may tentatively be called the "category of futurity option". 
The future in the second and third persons, formed by the indis-
criminate auxiliary will, does not express this category, which is 
dependent on the semantics of the persons: normally it would be ir-
relevant to indicate in an obligatory way the aspect of futurity op-
tion otherwise than with the first person, i.e. the person of self. 
This category is neutralised in the contracted form -'ll, which is of 
necessity indifferent to the expression of futurity option. As is 
known, the traditional analysis of the contracted future states that -
'll stands for will, not for shall. However, this view is not supported 
by textual data. Indeed, bearing in mind the results of our study, it 
is easy to demonstrate that the contracted forms of the future may 
be traced both to will and to shall. Cf.: 
I'll marry you then, Archie, if you really want it (M. Dickens). → I 
will marry you. I'll have to think about it (M. Dickens). → I shall 
have to think about it. 
From the evidence afforded by the historical studies of the lan-
guage we know that the English contracted form of the future -'ll 
has actually originated from the auxiliary will. So, in Modern Eng-
lish an interesting process of redistribution of the future forms has 
taken place, based apparently on the contamination will → 'll <— 
shall. As a result, the form -'ll in the first person expresses not the 
same "pure" future as is expressed by the indiscriminate will in the 
second and third persons. 
The described system of the British future is by far more compli-
cated than the expression of the future tense in the other national 
variants of English, in particular, in American English, where the 
future form of the first person is functionally equal with the other 
persons. In British English a possible tendency to a similar levelled 
expression of the future is actively counteracted by the two struc-
tural factors. The first is the existence of the two functionally dif-
fering contractions of the future auxiliaries in the negative form, i. 
e. shan't and won't, which imperatively support the survival of 
shall in the first person against the levelled positive (affirmative) 
contraction -'ll. The second is the use of the future tense in inter-
rogative sentences, where with the first person only shall is nor-
mally used. Indeed, it is quite natural that a genuine question di-
rected by the speaker to

---

151
himself, i.e. a question showing doubt or speculation, is to be asked 
about an action of non-wilful, involuntary order, and not otherwise. 
Cf.: 
What shall we be shown next? Shall I be able to master shorthand 
professionally? The question was, should I see Beatrice again be-
fore her departure? 
The semantics of the first person futurity question is such that even 
the infinitives of essentially volition-governed actions are trans-
ferred here to the plane of non-volition, subordinating themselves 
to the general implication of doubt, hesitation, uncertainty. Cf.: 
What shall I answer to an offer like that? How shall we tackle the 
matter if we are left to rely on our own judgment? 
Thus, the vitality of the discriminate shall/will future, characteristic 
of careful English speech, is supported by logically vindicated in-
tra-lingual factors. Moreover, the whole system of Modern British 
future with its mobile inter-action of the two auxiliaries is a prod-
uct of recent language development, not a relict of the older peri-
ods of its history. It is this subtly regulated and still unfinished sys-
tem that gave cause to H. W. Fowler for his significant statement: 
".. of the English of the English shall and will are the shibboleth."*