Simple Futurate, Factuality and Non-factuality with Modal Auxiliaries,

Frames of Reference and Backshifted Modal Auxiliaries

1. The Simple Futurate and fixed scheduled time

2. The differences between non-factual (uninflected) and factual (inflected) modals
3. Factual meanings of modal verbs
4. Past frames of reference and acceptability of past non-factuality with modals;
future frames of reference
5. Summary

1. Simple Futurate
Before we begin discussing the main issue, let us get one popular misconception out
of the way. Grammars frequently suggest that the Simple Futurate represents a
marked future of unusual definiteness or that it expresses certainty about future
events. This, however, seems unlikely in view of examples such as the following:
- The bus comes at 7:30.
It is after all not plausible that sentences about the time of arrival of buses should
express certainty time and time again (incidentally, London Buses want to use
electronic paper in order to keep their timetables more up-to-date).
If we consider a possible evolution of the meaning of the form, we can see that the
serial situation meaning is closely related with the calendar and cyclic events in
nature. But the use of the form does not stem from the use of the present simple with
serial situations either - at least not directly, since it can be used with singulary
situations:
- What time does the match start?

What the various uses of the Futurate have in common is fixed scheduled time.
Timetables, schedules as well as the calendar have this in common that their
'scheduled' time is fixed, not that they are certain to happen - as is often not the case
with buses, planes or sporting events (delays, accidents, a little bit of rain or fog are
commonly known to prevent such events from happening).
That fixed shceduled time is an accurate description of the Simple Futurate
becomes even more apparent when we compare it with sentences where the
Progressive expresses the fact that the time has been rescheduled (compare Quirk et
al. 1985:216):
- The plane is taking off at 20:30 tonight.
Or when the scheduled time can be relatively easier to change:
- We're meeting at 7.

2. Factuality and non-factuality with modal verbs

The meanings of modal auxiliaries can be divided into two groups - with the first
group the utterance is presented as non-factual (potential, unverified or
counterfactual):
note: By non-factuality we understand that the situation is potential, its factuality
unverified or that the statement is counterfactual

non-factual
- no tense inflection, present or future time reference
She may have the results already/when we visit her tomorrow.
They might be in Paris now/tomorrow.

factual
- inflected present/past forms
She can/could speak five languages.
He will/would often lie in bed all day, playing video games.

While non-factuality refers to 'theoretical' knowledge, factuality here is understood as

knowledge that has been empirically verified (by the speaker or some other source
known to her). This potentially controversial issue can be illustrated by contrasting
two present uses of 'will':
- David will be in London by now.
(non-factual - the speaker hasn't 'empirically' verified that David is in London)
- David will often lie in bed all day, playing video games.
(factual - refers to behaviour observed on a number of occasions)

Non-factual modals, even when they express certainty, still imply that this certainty
has not been verified by evidence.

note: We don't refer here to empirical verification in the strictly scientific sense, of
course. In addition, mathematics (which together with metaphysics Immanuel Kant
categorised as examples of synthetic a priori knowledge) is a special case - indeed,
that which in mathematics is necesserily the case doesn't need to be empirically

verified in order to be recognised as factually true.

Non-factuality
This group of meanings includes epistemic and deontic uses of modals which can
express three degrees of strength - necessity (excludes not-P), possibility (allows notP) and counterfactuality (implies not-P):

note: Not-P refers here to the negation of the proposition P, not its negative polarity,
and is therefore similar to the meaning of p in mathematical logic.

3. Factuality with modal verbs

The second group of meanings expresses empirically verified factuality. As has been
said before, what is characteristic of this group is that the preterite forms refer to the
past. The list below is not quite exhaustive, but the few other uses which have a past
inflected form can also be shown to express factuality.

can/could
'Can' has a factual meaning when it refers to someone's verified ability or observed
behaviour, or when it reports law, rules, regulations, etc:
- She can swim/see the castle.
- She could swim/see the castle.
- He can be tactless at times.

- He could be tactless at times.

- Everybody above the age of 18 can vote in elections.
- In those days only men could vote in elections.

may/might
A similar relationship between 'may' and 'might' can be illustrated by the following
two examples borrowed from Huddleston/Pullum (2002: 184, 196):
- The hairs are there all the time, although they may not grow noticably before
puberty.
('sometimes they don't')
- When my father was attached to a cavalry regiment at Brighton before we moved
to Stonehurst, my parents might attend an occasional concert at the Pavillion.
('sometimes they did')

will/would
'Will' below describes someone's (observed) typical behaviour (two other important
uses of 'will/would' are described later):
- He will talk for hours if you let him.
- Every morning he would go for a long walk.

must
'Must' can also have a factual meaning - since it doesn't have a preterite form, we
use 'had to' instead (what's more, 'must' in this use can be replaced by 'have to'):
- The wooden gate must/has to be oiled regularly to function properly.
- The wooden gate had to be oiled regularly to function properly.

perfective couldn't and wouldn't

With the volitional meaning of 'will/would', it is only refusal that we treat as factual.
Similarly with the negative form 'couldn't' referring to single past situations viewed
perfectively. In both cases the negative forms imply their 'empirical' verification:

- She wouldn't sign the form. (implies: she didn't sign the form then)
- I couldn't get a seat. (implies: I didn't get a seat)

note: With the affirmative there is no implication of empirical evidence, but 'could'
can sometimes be used in a similar way, as in this example from Larreya (2003:31)
where the empirical verification is stated explicitly: - He had the key. He could open
the door.

futurity use of 'will'

There is one more important modal preterite that refers to the past in the matrix
clause - 'would' in its futurity in the past sense:
- We thought their love would change into hate, but it didn't.
- Only a few months later their love would change into hate, but it didn't.
The second sentence, unlike the first one, is inconsistent. Backshifted 'would' differs
from futurity in the past use of 'would' which expresses factuality of past situations.
And this brings us to the surprising conclusion that 'will' should have a factual futurity
use as well. An argument often heard is that we can never be absolutely certain
about future situations. This doesn't mean that future factuality is impossible to
express in English. In fact, the majority of speakers of English who identify
themselves as Christians (83% in the US) treat as factual the future events described
in the following passage from the Bible:
"For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and
wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time."
(Mt 24:24-25, New International Version)

Here the Speaker describes what He knows or sees before His very eyes (and it is not
impossible for God to make factual statements about the future, nor again is it
impossible to express them in English). This use differs from epistemically weaker
sentences such as "He will have finished by now." where the speaker is 'not able to
assert from direct observation that he has finished' (Huddleston 1988 p. 78).
Another important fact here is that in this latter use the preterite form 'would' does
not refer to the past, and that the same is true for all the other epistemic
meanings of modal verbs. We can now see why 'will' is often referred to as a future
tense marker, even in more recent publications.
note: This is reflected in the special status accorded to 'will' by cognitive grammars,
where it is said to refer to projected reality, as opposed to potential reality associated
with the other modals. (Langacker 1991, Green/Evans 2006, Radden/Dirven 2007)

4. Frames of reference
The primary frame of reference is that of the speaker:

- He will come at 7.
- He didn't come last Thursday.

A past frame of reference uses past verb forms, including past forms of modal
verbs. In reported speech and thought this is referred to as backshift, but can also be
found with some other types of subordinate clauses (e.x. purpose clauses). What is
crucially important here is that in such cases we can use the past forms of modals
even with their non-factual meanings. This is because a past frame of reference
gives us more freedom in terms of expressing non-factuality of past situations:

- Helen knew she could/might/should/would see him shortly.

(adapted from Huddleston/Pullum 2002:198)

In reported speech we have in consequence two frames of reference - that of the

speaker of the original sentence (the secondary frame of reference) and that of
the speaker reporting it (the primary frame of reference):

The forms of the secondary frame of reference take priority over the forms of the
primary reference frame:
- They were afraid that it might snow later.
- They said they would be here right about now.

The areas of overlap, however, offer a choice between the forms of the primary and
secondary frames of reference - that is, when what was in the future is still in the
future, or when what was in the present is still in the present:
- She said she would/will come tomorrow.
- She said she lived/lives in Barcelona.

The past area of overlap does not offer any additional choice of forms, because
backshifted past tenses use the same forms that are used for situations before a past
moment of speaking.

The same issue of conflict and overlap occurs when the secondary reference frame is
located in the future. Again, the forms of the secondary frame of reference take
priority so that present and past tense forms are used even for situations that are
located in the future in the primary frame of reference:

- If you don't buy it, you may soon regret that you missed such a bargain.
- If you eat any more, you'll say you don't want any tea.
(adapted from Huddleston/Pullum 2002:136,139)
In the absence of future tense inflection, future frames of reference use the same
forms as present frames of reference. In consequence, the future area of overlap
doesn't offer any additional choice of alternative forms.

5. Summary
In this essay we have argued that the simple futurate does not express certainty
about future events, but rather that their scheduled time is fixed. We then divided
meanings expressed by modals into factual and non-factual.
We saw that all uses of modals which express factuality - and only such uses - inflect
for tense. 'Would' in its future-in-the-past sense is one of such past forms, from which
we concluded that it must have an uninflected equivalent, that is - 'will'. We further
provided an extract from the Bible illustrating the factual use of futurity 'will'. Finally,
we showed how a past frame of reference offers more freedom in terms of expressing
non-factuality of past situations.