The ‘Future Use’ of the Present Progressive in English: Subjectification of the Progressive and an Analysis in Terms of Cognitive Grammar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study deals with the present progressive with future time reference. The aim of this paper is to show that the ‘future use’ of the present progressive is, diachronically, subjectified. After identifying the concept of subjectification defined by Traugott (1989, 1995, 2003, 2010) and Traugott & Dasher (2002), I show that the ‘future use’ is more subjective than the use of present ongoing activities, and argue that the ‘future use’ has been modeled in terms of subjectification. Moreover, this paper argues that, although the ‘future use’ does not refer to physically ongoing events, in the ‘future use’ the situation can be viewed as ‘in progress’ cognitively, and proposes a new account of the ‘future use’ based on the framework of Cognitive Grammar, as laid out by Langacker (2008). Thereby, it is shown that the use of present ongoing activities and the ‘future use’ are both based on the same cognitive foundation, and the difference lies in which portion is profiled.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".