Functional coexistence of synthetic and analytical future temporal forms in the present-day Germanic languages as a reflection of grammaticalization

Authors

  • Valeria Bondarenko Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv image/svg+xml Author
  • Andriy Botsman Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv image/svg+xml Author
  • Kateryna Karpova Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17721/APULTP.2026.52.141-161

Keywords:

formant, futurizing factor, future reference form, Nort-Germanic languages, opposition, West-Germanic languages

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to find out the reflection of joint functions of the synthetic future (when notional verbs are used  in the present tense form for future reference) and analytical future (when the combination of modal or inchoative verbs with verbals is used for future reference). The subject of this research is a group of peculiarities revealed in the functioning of the future tense forms in the present-day Germanic languages. The investigation rests on the selection of some West and North Germanic languages which are similar to each other due to the territorial contact reciprocity. Within all selected languages the verb forms for futurity were identified and grouped into two main types. The first type is synthetic and grasps mostly non-occlusive notional verbs in the present tense forms. This type is accompanied by outer futurizing factors (of morphological and syntactical nature). The second type is analytical and contains two functional components. The first component functions as the initial formant consisting of modal or inchoative verbs. The second component functions as the final formant including verbals. The analytical type is accompanied by inner futurizing factors. Analytical future demonstrates the degree of penetration which takes place between initial and final formants, and this degree indicates the level of grammaticalization. Within the set of grammatical forms for future reference there are seven variants of opposition of binary and ternary types. Hepta-variant opposition gives some flexibility, universality, lability many-sided application to the forms of futurity. The process of grammaticalization is revealed as multі-aspect and integrated phenomenon. 

References

A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. (1985). Eds. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. London, New York: Longman, 1779 p. [in English].

Beheydt, G. (2005). The Absolute and Relative Present Tense with Future Time Reference in English and Dutch. Crosslinguistic Views of Tense, Aspect and Modality. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 15 – 32 [in English].

Donaldson, B. (2017). Dutch: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge, 456 s. [in English].

Hilpert, M. (2006). A synchronic perspective on the grammaticalization of Swedish future construction. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 29 (2), 151–173 [in English].

Holmes, P., Enger, H. (2018). Swedish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge, 566 p. [in English].

Holmes, P., Hinchcliffe, I. (2013). Norwegian: a comprehensive grammar. Taylor and Francis, 743 p. [in English].

Hopper, H., Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP, 296 p. [in English].

Jenneke, O. (2014). Modern Dutch Grammar. A practical guide. London: Routledge, 300 p. [in English].

Kunz, R. (2024). Comparative grammar of Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish. https://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Grammar-Swedish-orwegian-Danish-ebook/dp/BOCW1G1QSS [in English].

Lass, R. (2000). Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP, 423 p. [in English].

Lohndal, T. (2019). Formal grammar. Theory and variation across English and Norwegian. London: Routledge, 448 p. [in English].

Lundskaer, T., Holmes, N. (2015). Danish: a comparative grammar. London: Routledge, 752 p. [in English].

Muller, L. (2012). Practical and theoretical grammar of the German language. Berlin: Ulan Press, 422 p. [in English].

Müller, S. (2019). Grammatical Theory: from transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press, 877 p. [in English].

Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 429 p. [in English].

Shetter, W. (2006). Dutch. An Essential Grammar. London, New York: Routledge Taylor and Frencis Group, 322 p. [in English].

Tiersma, P. (1999). Frisian reference grammar. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy, 147 p. [in English].

Voyles, J. (1992). Early Germanic Grammar: Pre-, Proto-, and Post- Germanic Languages. San Diego, California: Academic Press, 302 p. [in English].

Wessèn, E. (1956). Svenska språkhistoria. Grundlinjer till en historisk syntax. Stockholm: Academiska Bokhanden, 346 s. [in Swedish].

Wischer, I., Diewald, G. (2002). New reflection on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 246 p. [in English].

Published

2026-05-30

Issue

Section

AUTHOR’S VIEW ON CURRENT LINGUISTIC PROBLEMS

How to Cite

Bondarenko, V., Botsman, A., & Karpova, K. (2026). Functional coexistence of synthetic and analytical future temporal forms in the present-day Germanic languages as a reflection of grammaticalization. Current Issues of Ukrainian Linguistics: Theory and Practice, 52, 141-161. https://doi.org/10.17721/APULTP.2026.52.141-161

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2