Английского

§ 7. Observing combinations with will in stylistically neutral collocations, 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 background 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 contrary 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 expresses 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 referred 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
148
non-voluntary shall-future (i.e. verbs inherently alien to the expression 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 arrival 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 ensuring 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 transformational analysis. The method will consist not in free structural manipulations 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 construction of the voluntary will-future is expanded (complicated) by a syntactic part re-modelling the whole collocation into one expressing 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 opposition of the forms will + Infinitive and shall + Infinitive expressing, respectively, the voluntary
149
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 indiscriminate auxiliary will, does not express this category, which is dependent on the semantics of the persons: normally it would be irrelevant to indicate in an obligatory way the aspect of futurity option 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 language we know that the English contracted form of the future -'ll has actually originated from the auxiliary will. So, in Modern English 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 complicated 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 structural factors. The first is the existence of the two functionally differing 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 interrogative sentences, where with the first person only shall is normally used. Indeed, it is quite natural that a genuine question directed by the speaker to
150
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 before her departure?
The semantics of the first person futurity question is such that even the infinitives of essentially volition-governed actions are transferred 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 intra-lingual factors. Moreover, the whole system of Modern British future with its mobile inter-action of the two auxiliaries is a product of recent language development, not a relict of the older periods of its history. It is this subtly regulated and still unfinished system that gave cause to H. W. Fowler for his significant statement: ".. of the English of the English shall and will are the shibboleth."*