TENSE

TIME VS TENSE (TIME IS REFLECTED BY TENSE)

-

Time is objective in the sense that it does not have absolute reality outside the form of our perception of the
world; it is not inherent to objects.
- Time is an epistemic notion as it mirrors our experience of the world.
- Time has a linear representation, which preserves the sequential character of our perception of the world.
- Time is durationally infinite and segmentable; we perceive it as unidirectional (forwards).
Time is segmented by two different procedures:
- a personal subjective estimate of duration
- a public estimate based on the periodicity of natural phenomena
Accordingly, there is
- a personal time: mans endeavor to measure duration by using his emotions as an instrument (time is expanded
or contracted)
- a public time, characteristic of society; time measurement is subjected to public agreement and it is based on the
periodicity of some observable natural phenomena (revolution of the earth round its axis, its periodic relation to
the sun, the moon, the stars etc)
TENSE: A DEICTIC CATEGORY
Tense is generally defined as representing the chronological order of events in time as perceived by the
speaker at the moment of speaking, speech time (ST). Tense is a deictic category, i.e. the moment NOW is central in
the sense that time past or time future represent DIRECTIONS whose ORIENTATION depends on ST. ST/NOW is
a central point on the temporal axis of orientation according to which we interpret the ordering of events/states. All
accounts of tense make interpretation sensitive to tense. Events can be simultaneous with ST (at relation) or they can
be sequential to it (before / after relations).
Tense is a functional category that expresses a temporal relation to the orientation point (ST) in the sense
that it locates in time the situation talked about.
TENSE: MORE THAN TENSE INFLECTIONS
A common mistake in approaching the category of tense is the belief that tense inflections alone mirror
time. In fact they are not enough to express the temporal specification of a message. A proper interpretation of
temporal forms presupposes an analysis of the relation between
(i)
(ii)

tense specification of the V (i.e. tense inflection) and

temporal adverbials.

INFL identifies the event of the VP in the sense that it places that particular event in time. A VP consists of
both its lexical head V0 and the complement(s) it has selected. We know that information about the selection of
complements by a verb is part of the lexical entry of that verb in the lexicon and it represents more or less its
descriptive content. If we assume that, roughly speaking, the descriptive content of a verb is the idea of event, we
cannot conceive of this event without taking into account the complements of the respective verb as well as those
explicit lexical means of placing the event in time: time adverbials. It means that when discussing temporal
interpretation, we have to talk about sentence temporal interpretation or, at least, about predicate temporal
interpretation.
TIME/TEMPORAL ADVERBIALS
Time adverbials include adverbs, adverb phrases and adverbial clauses and they specify RT together with
tense inflections. Tense inflections are strongly related to adverbials. The latter add meaning to a sentence and
during the process they might even disambiguate it. On the other hand, sentences without time adverbials may be

non-ambiguous due to the context, which acts as a time adverbial giving a certain temporal reading or due to the fact
that people tend to maximise available information, i.e. we apply the relation of simultaneity wherever possible.
Albert is playing tennis. (now / tomorrow)
Albert was playing tennis. (then / future)
This actually means that we associate with a sentence that is vague the temporal interpretation that requires
the least additional information (sort of default reading).
In addition to this, there are regular co-occurrences between tense inflections and time adverbials (there are
adverbials that co-occur only with simple past or only with present perfect and there are others that co-occur with
both).
Classification of time adverbials
The relation between time adverbials and ST can be explicit or non-explicit. We distinguish between:
(i)
anchored time adverbials which are in an explicit relation to ST in the sense that their temporal
interpretations are determined relative to ST (now, yesterday, tomorrow)
(ii)
unanchored adverbials which do not have an explicit relation to ST and which orient themselves to
times other than the utterance time or to utterance time (in June, on Friday); they have various
interpretations.
Given that temporal adverbials also contribute to the aspectual interpretation of sentences we can establish
a further classification that distinguishes among: duration adverbials, completive adverbials, locating / frame
adverbials and frequency adverbials. Duration and completive adverbials also have an aspectual value (they are
sensitive to the aspectual value of the situation), requiring compatibility with the situation type.
a.

Duration adverbials: for three months/a day/a week, for a while, since the war/Christmas, at night, all
afternoon, for hours, all the time, over the weekend, through August, during the war, always, permanently,
all day long, etc.

they indicate the duration of the described event by specifying the length of time that is asserted to take
contribute to the location of the event in time, more specifically within the stated interval
compatible with atelic sentences, but odd with telic sentences
compatible with states and processes (activities)
1.
2.
3.
4.

Susan was asleep for two hours. (atelic)

Andrew swam for three hours. (atelic)
(?) John wrote a / the report for two hours. (telic)
*The train arrived late for two hours.

Whenever telic events occur in the context of duration adverbials there is a clash between the aspectual properties of
the situation type and the aspectual properties of the adverbials. Such clashes are resolved by a shift in the value of
the verb constellation, which receives a marked interpretation. This contextual interpretation is made possible by the
process called coercion.
1. I read a book for a few minutes. (coercion into a process)
2. Jerry wrote a report for two hours. (acc. into activity)
3. John knocked on the door for two hours. (semelf. into process of the multiple-event type)
4. Jon played the sonata for two hours. (acc. into process iterative: many times)
5. For years, Mary went to school in the morning. (acc. into state habitual)
6. For months, the train arrived late. (ach. into state habitual)
The felicity of the aspectual reinterpretation is strongly dependent on linguistic context and knowledge of the world.
Compare:
*John went into the house all afternoon.
John crossed the border all afternoon.

b. Completive adverbials: in 2 hours, within two months, in a second.

they locate the situation at an interval during which the event is completed/culminates. Aspectually, completive
adverbials are telic
compatible with telic situations and odd with atelics
1.
2.
3.
4.

John noticed the painting in a second.

Mary wrote a sonnet in five minutes.
(?) Bill swam laps in an hour.
(?) Mary believed in ghosts in an hour.

If (3) and (4) can be understood at all, they impose an ingressive interpretation to the sentences, in the sense that the
adverbials refer to an interval elapsed before the beginning of the situations and not an interval during which the
situations occur. The possible telic reinterpretations are: Bill swam his planned number of laps in an hour,
In/after an hour Bill swam laps, At the end of an hour/after an hour Mary began to believe in ghosts. The same
interpretation as the latter occurs with achievements and semelfactives: They reached the top in ten minutes (after
ten minutes), She knocked at the door in ten minutes (after ten minutes).
c.
-

Frequency adverbials: frequently, on Sundays, never, sometimes, often, whenever, monthly, daily, once a
week, every week/month etc.
they indicate the recurrent pattern of situations within the reference interval
they express a series of events which as a whole make a state of the habitual type:
We often/always went/go to the mountains in wintertime.

d. Locating adverbials / Frame adverbials:

they locate situations in time by relating them to other times or to other situations
they refer to an interval of time within which the described situation is asserted t have taken place
according to the time of orientation we can distinguish three classes:
1. deictic adverbials: oriented to the time of utterance (ST): now, today, last Sunday, last week, this
year, tomorrow, tonight, two weeks ago
2. anaphoric adverbials: relate to a previously established time: until, till, in the evening, on Sunday,
at night, early, before, in three days, on Christmas, at lunchtime, two years later, in March,
already
3. referential adverbials: refer to a time established by clock or calendar: at six, august 19, in 1987

PRESENT TENSE SIMPLE

Present Tense Simple is associated with the present moment - the speech time - in the sense that it may
refer either to a point in time identified with speech time (ST) or to an interval that includes the moment of speaking.
As far as its factual status is concerned, the present is between the past and the future. The past is considered to be
factually determined since we know if an action took place or not in the past. On the contrary, the future is the least
factually determined time. The present expresses both situations whose time of occurrence is known and situations
whose time of occurrence is not known.
VALUES OF PRESENT TENSE SIMPLE
1.

GENERIC VALUE unmarked value

Present Tense Simple used in generic sentences indicates the validity of a state at speech time without making
reference to a particular situation or moment. It ascribes a property to a subject; therefore, it appears in so-called
characterizing sentences. Generic sentences are true of some particular entities, namely kinds. Kind referring
expressions are bare plurals, definite singular NPs and mass nouns. They can also appear with indefinite NPs, proper
names and quantified NPs but in this case the locus of genericity is not in the NP but rather in the sentence itself, i.e.
these NPs get a generic interpretation only when occurring in characterizing sentences. Present simple is associated

with stative verbs and it is used in scientific language, in proverbs, definitions, geographical statements, in
instructions or when specifying game rules etc. Generic sentences are timeless statements expressing general or
universal truths.
Water boils at 100C.
Blood is thicker than water.
London stands on the Thames.
2.

HABITUAL VALUE unmarked value

Habitual sentences indicate that a situation is repeated with a certain frequency during an interval of time. Since
they do not focus on a particular situation but rather on its recurrence, they do not point to a specific moment in time
and in this respect they resemble generic sentences. However, unlike generic sentences, habitual sentences refer to
an individual or an object about which the respective property is true at speech time. Very often, they include
adverbs of frequency classified into general (ever, never, whenever, usually, often, seldom) and specific (three times
a week, twice a day, every two weeks).
Habitual sentences may be completely specified, indicating both the frequency and the interval during which an
event takes place. Yet, more often than not they have less than complete temporal specification. Compare:
They visit me every two days during holidays. (specified frequency and interval)
They visit me every day. (unspecified interval)
He eats a lot of vegetables in winter. (unspecified frequency)
He doesn't eat many vegetables. (no frequency and no interval)
3.

INSTANTANEOUS VALUE - marked

The instantaneous simple present refers to an event that is assumed to be simultaneous with the moment of
speaking. It is used in sports commentaries, demonstrations, war reports, and exclamations, commentaries on
pictures, books or movies and stage directions:
Hagi takes the ball and passes it to Popescu. Popescu sends the ball into the net. Goal!
First I roll out the pastry, and then I add the mixture and spread it
Here comes the winner!
In Gone with the wind Scarlet writes a letter.
Seth and Minnie come forward as far as the lilac clump He nudges Minnie with his elbow (ONeill,
Mourning Becomes Electra)
It is true that in most cases the event does not occur exactly when it is mentioned, but this simultaneity is rather
subjective than objective.
Events that are simultaneous with the moment of speaking may be expressed either by a simple present or a
present continuous:
He shuts the window. / He is shutting the window.
However, whereas the continuous present represents a neutral description of an action going on at the moment
of speaking, the use of the simple present is rather dramatic since it insists on the total completion of the event
mentioned.
The instantaneous present is also used in performative sentences that employ performative verbs - verbs that
themselves are part of the activity they report - such as accept, deny, name, declare, pronounce. When having an
instantaneous value, the performative verb appears in the first person singular or plural and may be accompanied by
hereby:
I name this ship "Queen Mary".
We sentence you to prison for life.
I hereby pronounce you man and wife.

In performative sentences the event reported and the act of speech are simultaneous simply because they are
identical. A performative act is felicitous on condition that the persons and the circumstances involved in it are
appropriate for the invocation of the respective procedure (for instance, it is only a priest that can marry you and this
can happen only in a church).
Both habitual and generic sentences may receive instantaneous readings under certain circumstances:
Swallows fly higher than doves. (generic reading)
Look, the swallows fly higher than the doves. (instantaneous reading because of the suggestion of instantaneous
perception indicated by "Look")
He scores goals. (habitual interpretation because of the plural direct object)
He scores a goal. (instantaneous interpretation)
4.

FUTURE VALUE - marked

The simple present may acquire a future value either in simple sentences or in subordinate adverbial clauses of
time and condition introduced by after, as soon as, when, before, if, unless etc.
In simple sentences it is accompanied by a temporal adverbial indicating the future: The plane leaves for New
York at 5 p.m. tomorrow. The use of the simple present signals the fact that the future event is bound to happen, in
other words, the anticipated event is attributed the same degree of certainty that we normally assign to present or
past events. For this reason the simple present with this value represents the only marked way to express the future
time in English. It refers to mostly official or collective future plans or arrangements that cannot be altered. It may
relate to timetables, schedules, itineraries etc.:
The caravan sets off tomorrow morning.
We leave Bucharest on Monday morning, arrive in London at noon and set off for Glasgow in the evening.
The use of the simple present with future value in adverbial clauses of time and condition has more than a
syntactic explanation. In the examples below the content of the adverbial clause is assumed to exist as a fact:
I'll see what to do when I meet him.
By the time you get there, the show will have already begun.
I will be very unhappy if our team does not win.
There is a contrast of meaning between the main clause and the subordinate. The event referred to in the former
is a prediction, whereas the event expressed in the latter is a fact that is taken as given, which provides an axis of
orientation for the action predicted in the main clause.
NB. Students are inclined to think that they must use only the simple present after clauses introduced by when
and if. However, the rule applies only to those cases in which when and if introduce adverbial clauses of time and
condition. Compare:
I will talk to him when I see him. (time clause)
I don't know when I will see him. (direct object clause) / I don't know this.
I will take my umbrella if it rains. (conditional clause)
I don't know if it will rain. (direct object clause) / I don't know this.
5.

PAST VALUE - marked

The use of the Simple Present with a past value is best known as the historic present and represents a
storyteller's license, being typical of an oral narrative style. As Jespersen (1931:17) remarked, the "historic present is
pretty frequent in connected narrative: the speaker, as it were, forgets all about time and imagines, or recalls, what
he is recounting, as vividly as if it were now present before his eyes". The simple present with this value often
alternates with a time adverbial indicating the past:

At that moment in comes a messenger from the Head Office, telling me the boss wants to see me in a hurry. (I.
Stefanescu, 1988:261)
However, a distinction has to be made between the historic present described above and the present forms
employed to narrate fictional, that is, imaginary events.
The historic present is also used after verbs of linguistic communication such as tell, say, learn, hear:
Mary tells me that you are going to buy new furniture. (in a letter)
Your correspondent Mr. Pitt writes in the March issue that (in the correspondence column of a journal)
In both cases the simple present emphasizes the persistence in the present of the effect of a past communication.
Though tell and hear in the examples above refer to the initiation of a message, the use of the present seems to
transfer the verbal meaning from the initiating to the receiving end of the message, so that communication is still in
force for the receiver.
At the same the historic present is employed when describing an artist and his work because this feels as if they
were still alive. The difference between using the present and using the past simply involves the speaker's point of
view: if he employs the present, then he considers that the artist still survives through his work, and if he uses the
past, then he sees the artist as a person who died at a certain moment in the past. Compare:
Brahms is the last great representative of German classicism.
Brahms was the last great representative of German classicism.
Finally, the simple present appears in newspaper headlines to announce recent events, its use reminding one of
the dramatic quality of the instantaneous present; it is also present in photographic captions in newspapers, in
historical summaries and tables of dates:
MPs back school reform. / Ex-president dies of heart attack.
Mr. Gore shakes hands with Mr. Bush. (photo caption)
1876 - Brahms finishes his first symphony.
Although so far all the uses of the simple present have involved real facts, the simple present may also refer to
imaginary situations. This fictional use makes reference to no real time, but to an imaginary present time, giving the
reader the impression that he is actually witnessing the events described. In such cases, the simple present often
alternates with a past tense.
His lordship had no sooner disappeared behind the trees of the forest, but Lady Randolph begins to explain to
her confidante the circumstances of her early life. The fact was she had made a private marriage (Thackeray,
Virg. Ch. LIX, 614)

PAST TENSE SIMPLE

The simple past is used to locate a situation at some specified time in the past; the content of the event or
state described being actually recollected at speech time. There are two basic elements of meaning involved in the
common use of the simple past. First, the situation described by the simple past takes place before the present
moment, which means that the moment NOW is excluded. Second, the person uttering the sentence must have a
definite time in mind suggested by means of specific time adverbs (yesterday, two days ago, in 1974, last summer,
etc.).
He was born in London in 1952 and spent his entire life there. / I just talked to him on the phone a moment
ago. / I bought this dictionary when I was in Lisbon.
However, speakers do not need to locate a past event by means of a time adverb. The simple past may
appear alone if the speaker who has a specific time in mind can assume that his interlocutor can understand this
either by inferring the time from the larger context in which the situation occurs or by making use of the definiteness
of the participants involved:

Did you remember to give him my message?

Did you see Led Zeppelin perform live in Bucharest?
A: I couldn't find Mary at the party last night. / B: Well, I couldn't find her either.
Thus, in the first two examples above the definiteness of the situation is confirmed by the definiteness of
the participants involved (my message) or of the circumstances (Led Zeppelin did perform in Bucharest on a specific
day which is officially known). In the last example, speaker A specifies the past moment and speaker B does not
need to mention it in his turn. Thus it becomes obvious that the definiteness of the event expressed by the simple
past does not necessarily presuppose that the time in question be specified, only that it be specifiable.
Another particular case in which a past simple is used without a definite adverb of time involves a
combination with the present perfect. The latter is used to introduce an unspecified event that takes place anterior to
the moment of speaking in a period that began in the past and includes the moment NOW. Once an anterior frame of
reference is established for the discourse it is only natural to refer to the already introduced situation by means of a
definite specifier, i.e. the simple past:
A: Where have you been? / B: To the restaurant. / A: What did you do there? / B: I had lunch, of course.
Finally, the simple past can be used without a definite adverb of time if the utterance refers to a comparison
between present and past conditions as in: Bucharest is no longer what it was / used to be. / He is a nitwit, but he
is less of a nitwit than he was.
VALUES OF PAST TENSE SIMPLE
1.

DEICTIC VALUE

The simple past can be used deictically with a deictic adverb of time of the type yesterday, two years ago,
last night, in 1987, etc. In this case the location of the event in time is established in relation to the moment of
speaking NOW:
Haydn was born in 1732. / My friend left for Poland in July. / I finished reading the book last night.
2.

NARRATIVE VALUE

Since it deals with past events the simple past is a natural choice for narratives, whether the events narrated
are real historical events or just fictional situations devised in novels. However, in this case, the simple past is no
longer accompanied by a time adverbial and the situations described by this tense are ordered by the laws governing
the narrative mode rather than by information present in the sentences proper. It is the whole context created by the
advancing of the story that supplies the order of the events.
'() She left him alone in the kitchen. He picked up a chair, then set it down again and went out into the
scullery. He opened the garden door, and a great moth flew into his face. Then he stepped out into the garden and
faced the enemies.()' (Dylan Thomas - 'In the Garden' - Collected Stories)
Moreover, we use the simple past for narrative even when referring to future events as in science fiction.
"We are invited by this convention to look at future events as if from a vantage-point even further in the future. Any
narrative normally presupposes, in the imagination, such a retrospective view." - A. S. Leech (1971: 10).
In the year AD 2201, the interplanetary transit vehicle Zeno VII made a routine journey to the moon with
twenty people on board.
3.

HABITUAL VALUE

When used with this value, the simple past refers to events recurrent within a given past interval of time.
Unlike simple present sentences in which the time adverbial specifies the event time - i.e. indicating the recurrence

of the event, simple past sentences allow the presence of both a time adverbial indicating the frequency specification
and a time adverbial that supplies the interval during which the recurring event took place. Compare:
Brian runs a mile every day.
Brian ran a mile every day during his childhood.
The habitual interpretation can be rendered by the frequency adverbial whose determiner must be indefinite
or by a plural indefinite object:
I went to the mountains three times a year. (habitual)
I went to the mountains three times that year. (non-habitual)
My dog chased my neighbor's cat / a cat. (non-habitual)
My dog chased cats. (habitual)
4.

PAST PERFECT VALUE

This value is derived from a contrast between simultaneous past events and past events occurring in a
sequence.
He enjoyed and admired her paintings. (simultaneous)
He unlocked and opened the door. (sequential)
In the first example the order of the events can be reversed without altering the meaning of the sentence,
whereas a reversal of the order of the events in the second example is impossible basing our judgment on our
knowledge about the way these activities can be performed. The event of unlocking the door necessarily takes place
before its opening and thus the simple past "unlocked" has past perfect value.
On the other hand, the temporal relation between two consecutive events can be overtly marked by means
of conjunctions (preserving the simple past in both the main clause and the subordinate clause) or by the auxiliary
HAVE, which indicates anteriority:
I (had) read twenty more pages before I went to bed.
As soon as she saw / had seen me, she rose quickly and left the room.
After I (had) finished dinner, I went out with my friends.
5.

PRESENT TIME VALUE

This represents a special development of the normal past meaning, which appears in everyday conversation
making reference to the present feelings or thoughts of the speaker:
A: Did you want me?
B: Yes, I hoped you could give me a hand with the cleaning.
Although speaker B could have used the present instead of the past, his choice of the respective verbal form
renders the request indirect and thus, more polite. Unlike a present form, which would have made a polite answer
impossible, the past form avoids a clash of wills, allowing speaker A to either accept or decline the request.
Similarly, speaker A's question indicates politeness. "Do you want me?" would have been rather imperative,
suggesting that speakers A and B have similar social positions, and would have implied that the former was not at all
pleased with speaker B making a request.
Other verbs often present in similar contexts are wonder and think; in most cases they are used in
combination with the continuous aspect, which adds a further overtone of politeness:
I wondered / was wondering if you could help me with the kids while I am away.
I thought I might drop by later tonight if you don't mind.
PRESENT PERFECT

Past events can be predicated about either in the past tense or the present perfect from two different
perspectives. In John read the book last year, the event of Johns reading the book in is entirety is specified/dated
as occurring during last year, which is prior and thus distinct from the moment NOW. In John has already read the
book, we understand that Johns reading the book in its entirety occurred at some unspecified time in the past, but
the event is related and, thus, relevant to the present moment through its result: now, John knows what the book is
about.
There have been several theories that tried to capture this distinction between the past simple and the present
perfect:
(a) The Indefinite Past Theory present perfect locates events somewhere before the moment of speaking,
without identifying any particular point or interval of time. ET is indefinite and specified only by
indefinite adverbials: since 3 oclock, for two hours, so far, yet, etc. in contrast, ET of past simple events is
definite: at two oclock, yesterday, etc.
(b) The Current Relevance Theory it is only present perfect that claims relevance at the moment NOW, a
feature the past simple lacks. Compare You woke him up when you went to the bathroom ten minutes
ago. to Youve waken him up the present perfect itself in the second sentence locates the effects of the
event at NOW.
(c) The Extended Now Theory speakers can psychologically extend the present backwards by means of
present perfect in English. The present perfect serves to locate an event within a period of time that begins
in the past and extends up to the present moment (and includes it). In contrast, the past tense specifies that
an event occurred at a past time that is separated and distinct from the present.
Before embarking upon an analysis of the two tenses mentioned above, we should clarify the relationship
between the English perfect and the perfective aspect, since the English perfect is quite often related to the meaning
of completion or result. Without renouncing the idea that the perfect marks anteriority, we can maintain the
connection between the perfect and the perfective in view of the fact that what is 'summed up as a whole' (i.e.
perfective) may also be anterior to a certain moment in time. What we need to understand is that the 'result /
completion' meaning is not intrinsic to the perfect; rather, just like the other meanings of the present perfect, it stems
from the interaction of the perfect form with the aspectual meaning of the verb phrase, plus the temporal adverbials
it co-occurs with.
Thus, the perfect may acquire different senses according to the type of aspectual class 'have' combines with:
1) continuative perfect
2) experiential perfect
3) resultative perfect
4) 'hot news' perfect
CONTINUATIVE PRESENT PERFECT
When the present perfect combines with state verb phrases in sentences that contain a durative adverbial
(for instance, since / for phrases), they express states extending over a period of time that lasts up to the present
moment:
I have lived in Paris since 1987.
The castle has been empty for ages.
Have you known my uncle for a long time?
Generally, the adverbial of duration cannot be absent from the sentence or otherwise the construction
acquires an indefinite past reading. I have lived in Paris simply places the situation at some unspecified point in the
past, without carrying any other information.
At the same time, there are exceptions to this rule if the semantic content of the respective sentence
suggests a period leading up to the present. In I've had a good life or You've outstayed your welcome the adverbials
of time are felt as implicit ('during my life' / 'so far' or 'for too long' in the case of 'outstay').
Used with process verb phrases and a frequency or a durative adverbial, the perfect expresses a habit and
thus has a recurrent continuative reading:
Mrs. Jones has played the organ in this church for fifteen years.
I have followed her behavior every day since she got here.

When I have tried to join their club, they have constantly turned me down.
The news has been broadcast at ten o'clock for as long as I can remember.
Since a habit is described as a state consisting of repeated events, this iterative use closely resembles the
continuative use of the perfect and, in fact, we may subsume it in the previous class as a type of 'recurrent
continuative' perfect.
Continuative: also with event verbs if in the progressive:
e.g. Hes been sleeping for two hours./ It has been snowing since noon./ Ever since the house has been occupied the
poltergeist have been acting up.
Modes of occurrence: a) continuous continuative: I have been sitting in all day.
b) discontinuous continuative: He has been building the house for the last five years. (i.e. on
and off)
EXPERIENTIAL PRESENT PERFECT
With process and event verbs phrases (accomplishments and achievements), the perfect may refer to some
indefinite situation in the past. By 'indefinite' we mean on the one hand, that the number of occurrences is
unspecified and on the other hand, that the time when it takes place is not mentioned. Therefore, such use is often
accompanied by adverbials of time of the type never, ever, always, before (now):
I have never seen such a majestic cathedral before.
Have you ever been to the States?
Have you visited the Dali exhibition?
The temporal location of some events may be very close to the moment NOW, in which case we refer to
recent indefinite past situations. Such examples often contain adverbs like just, already, yet or recently: Has the
postman called yet? / They have already had breakfast.
If the definite time when the experience occurred is mentioned, the speaker shifts from Present Perfect to
Past Tense:
e.g. A: Have you been to Edinburgh?
B: Yes, I have.
A: When did you go?
B: Oh, last April, thats when I did.
A: And did you visit many places while you were there?
B: Yes, I went to Hollyrood Palace.
Modes of occurrence: a) general experiential: He has never liked heavy metal. / A: Have you ever in your life seen
anyone so entirely delightful? B: Only when Ive looked in the mirror.
b) limited experiential: Have you had a letter to type today?/ She has already had three proposals this morning.
RESULTATIVE PRESENT PERFECT
The association of event verb phrases (accomplishments and achievements), that presuppose a climax or
end point, with the perfect generates a resultative reading - that is, it implies that a transition comes to a final state
valid at the present moment. The resultative meaning does not need the support of time adverbials:
He has delivered the parcel. / The plane has landed. / He has recovered from his illness.
'HOT NEWS' PRESENT PERFECT
The perfect is often used in newspapers and broadcasts, especially in news reports, to introduce 'the latest'
events, which afterwards are described using the past tense. The temporal location of such situations is generally
mentioned in the second sentence, but even if it is not, the simple past is still employed at this point in the discourse:

The struggling Romanian soccer club Jiul Petrosani has experienced what may be one of the more
humiliating moments in recent sports history. Last week, the club announced that it would trade midfielder
Ion Radu to second-division club Valcea for two tons of beef and pork.
(Newsweek, March 1988)
NB. There is a special use of the present perfect instead of the simple present in adverbial clauses of time
referring to the future introduced by after, when, until, once, etc. In such cases the present perfect is said to have a
future value. In most cases the alternation of present simple and present perfect bears no significance. The presence
of the perfect simply places emphasis on the order of the events: I shall leave when I finish / I have finished.
On the other hand, there are contexts in which the perfect is obligatory, namely, in those sentences that are
semantically based on the cause - effect relationship. We say You will feel better after you have taken this pill if the
pill conditions the well-being of the patient. Similarly, when the events in the main clause and the subordinate
temporally coincide, the simple present is favored; when the event in the subordinate occurs before the one in the
main clause, we use the present perfect: Come over and see us when our guests leave / have left.

PRESENT PERFECT AND SIMPLE PAST

As already stated, present perfect and simple past resemble in that both express anteriority to a given
moment in time. What differentiates them is their relation to the present. The simple past marks events assigned to a
past that is concluded and completely separate from the present. In contrast, the present perfect either involves a
period of time lasting up to the present or has results persisting at the present moment. The common factor is the
inclusion of the present in its analysis.
Bearing this in mind, let us compare the various uses of the present perfect with the simple past. Consider
the following examples of continuative, experiential and habitual perfect:
She has been poor all her life. (She is still alive.)
She was poor all her life. (She is dead.)
Hannibal brought / *has brought elephants across the Alps.
For generations, Nepal has produced the world's greatest soldiers. (Nepal still exists.)
For generations, Sparta produced Greece's greatest warriors. (Sparta no longer exists.)
The use of either the perfect or the past in the above sentences is to be interpreted pragmatically. The
period referred to is rather assumed than named, but our knowledge of the world allows us to employ the appropriate
tense; thus, we talk about Hannibal or Sparta in the past because we know they no longer exist, whereas Nepal
obviously has relevance for the present.
This last observation relates to another notion - that of Discourse Topic (defined as 'the subject matter
under discussion in a certain context'). Discourse topics condition the use of the present perfect in the sense that only
those covering a period of time that includes the moment of speaking can be expressed in sentences that employ
present perfect. Compare:
Shakespeare has written impressive dramas.
*Shakespeare has quarreled with every playwright in London.
The first sentence is appropriate if the discourse topic is 'great dramatists of the world' or 'impressive
dramas in world literature', because such a topic would have relevance for the present moment. But if the discussion
(i.e. discourse topic) is about Shakespeare as a person and his activities, neither of the two sentences is correct since
Shakespeare is dead. In conclusion, "at the pragmatic level, the present perfect is appropriate in all those uses in
which the event described has relevance for the discourse topic, a fact which can be evaluated entirely only on the
basis of contextual factors" (Ioana Stefanescu, English Morphology, vol. II, 1988).
The basic difference between present perfect and simple past stems from the contrast definite / indefinite.
As already seen in the analysis of the simple past, this tense requires the use of a definite time adverbial which
locates the respective event at a certain point in the past. If there is no time adverbial, then 'definiteness' is retrieved
by assumption of a particular time from the context or is justified by the preceding use of a past or perfect tense:
We met yesterday. (definite time adverbial)
I have already talked to him; he came to ask me for money. (the past event is introduced by the perfect)

Did you walk the dog? (said between husband and wife who refer to a particular time when the dog is
usually walked)
Contexts as that supplied by the second example also emphasize a characteristic of the present perfect; this
is used to initiate conversations, since it is only natural to start conversations indefinitely and then to carry on using
definite linguistic expressions (be they the simple past, definite articles or personal pronouns):
I have bought this bag in Cypress Street.
How much did you pay for it?
I paid 15 $.
Since it specifies a definite moment in the past, the past tense is expected in (subordinate) clauses of time
introduced by when, while, since, etc. because the time indicated by them is considered to be already given.
Naturally, a clause introduced by when will trigger the use of a past tense in the main clause as well because the
subordinate functions as a definite time adverbial:
When did you last see him?
I haven't seen him since we met at Jane's party.
I didn't recognize him / *haven't recognized him when I saw him.
The present perfect is less used in American English, especially when it appears with recent indefinite past
value; Americans tend to say Did you meet him yet?, while the British say Have you met him yet? or I did it just now
vs. I've just received word that he isn't coming.
In spite of the differences mentioned so far, there are contexts in which the two tenses are interchangeable that is, when they describe recent events. Their alternation depends on the speaker's viewpoint. Compare: Where did
I put my gloves? to Where have I put my gloves? In the first example, the speaker focuses on the moment when he
misplaced his gloves, perhaps trying to remember what he was doing at the time, while in the second he concentrates
on the present moment and is only interested in where they are at present.
TIME ADVERBIALS IN RELATION TO PRESENT PERFECT AND SIMPLE PAST
Time adverbials (i.e. adverbs, adverbial phrases, adverbial clauses) classify into definite (bearing the
feature [+THEN], indefinite (which are [-THEN]) and those that have both features (that is, they are [+/- THEN]).
The first class combines only with the past, the second only with the perfect and the last with both, resulting in
different meanings.
The definite adverbials of time point to a specific moment in the past, having no relation to the present and
hence, they cannot occur with the present perfect (yesterday, a week / month / year ago, last night / Tuesday / week /
month / year, etc.). Apart from them, there is the class of unanchored adverbs of the type in the evening, at 5 o'clock,
on Monday, then, soon, next, after lunch, etc. which most likely occur with the simple past, although they do not
make specific reference to it:
He went out ten minutes ago.
I left home at 8.00 and got here at 12.00.
I saw him on Sunday morning.
On the other hand, the following adverbials are associated only with the present perfect: since, so far, up to
now, hitherto, lately, for the present, for the time being, for now, as yet, during these five years, before now:
I haven't been able to talk to him since I last saw him at the mall.
He hasn't done much work lately.
We have been very busy so far.
It is interesting to notice that, though since - phrases cannot be used with the simple past, for - phrases
occur with both the perfect and the past, given the appropriate contexts:
They haven't spoken to each other for three weeks.

They didn't speak to each other for three weeks, but then they made up.
The third group of adverbials allows the use of both the perfect and the past, resulting in different
interpretations. Compare:
I haven't read the paper this morning. (uttered at 10.00 a.m.)
I didn't read the paper this morning. (uttered at 6.00 p.m.)
Today, tonight and all phrases with this (this afternoon / month / year / Christmas / March, etc.) behave in a
similar way. I saw her this July implies that July is over, but I've seen her this July suggests that it is still July when I
utter the sentence. The difference lies in whether the event is viewed simply as a factor of experience obtaining at
the moment of speech (with the present perfect) or within the context of the time at which it occurred (with past
simple).
The difference in use between just and just now is the following: just can take either past simple or present
perfect: I have just seen your sister. / I just saw your sister. while just now is interpreted as a moment/second/minute
ago and occurs only with the past tense: I saw your sister just now.
Never, ever, always combine with both tenses, again depending on the context; when used with the past
tense, the 'never' period, for instance, must be restricted to a past temporal frame as in: I never liked bananas when I
was a child where the time clause supplies the background.
Now is mainly associated with present tense: Now my ambition is/has been fulfilled. But it may also be a
substitute for then and thus occur with past tense: Now my ambition was fulfilled.
Once appears with the simple past when it means 'on a certain occasion' or 'at one time', but if it is a
numerical adverb that may contrast with twice or three times, it may be used with both tenses:
I was happy once in this house.
I've seen the movie only once.
I met him only once when I was in Spain.
Already, still, yet and before occur with the perfect if they mean 'as early / late as now' and with the past if
interpreted as 'as early / late as then':
I've already heard that piece. ('as early as now')
I was already fed up with that piece. ('as early as then')
PAST PERFECT
Past perfect may appear with both [+then] and [-then] adverbials, unlike present perfect which combines
only with [+/-then] and [-then] adverbials:
They had been there since 5. [-then]
Susan knew John had left at 5. [+then]
Moreover, past perfect may appear in narrative contexts, again unlike present perfect.
On the other hand, like present perfect, past perfect has three values: continuative, resultative and
experiential:
Jim had dislocated his shoulder. (resultative)
He had been at work for more than two hours. (continuative)
I had watched United lose twice that season. (experiential)
In Indirect Speech, past perfect is the tense we obtain if in Direct Speech we have present perfect or past
simple:
I have laid the table.
She said she had laid the table.
The show finished two minutes ago.

She said the show had finished two minutes before.

In conclusion, past perfect has two dimensions: (a) it parallels the semantics of present perfect; (b) it is seen
as a past tense that expresses past anteriority , in which case it is said to have a pre-preterite value. In this sense, past
perfect describes a past event that takes place before another past event or past moment:
They found out where she had buried the treasure.
By the time they went to dig it up, she had already hidden it in a new place.
By Friday they had already found a way to get rid of her.
As already exemplified in the sentences above, the past perfect occurs in both main and subordinate clauses
introduced by when, after, before, until, by the time, etc.
The past perfect can be substituted with the simple past, which acquires a past perfect meaning: When he
came back from the States, he landed a very important job. However, in some cases the substitution is semantically
impossible: When he had read the letter / *when he read the letter, he burned it.
There are three reasons for which we attribute this value to past perfect:
(a) its co-occurrence with [+then] adverbials
(b) the fact that it is the equivalent of past simple in Direct Speech. NB. In Indirect Speech, if the verb
expresses an event, past perfect is optional: Yesterday I went to the market. / She said she went/had
gone to the market the day before. If the verb expresses a state, then past perfect is obligatory: Lily was
here. / She said Lily had been there. / *She said Lily was there.
(c) the fact that it can be used in narratives to tell a story within a story, in which case past simple sets
the scene and past perfect expresses what had happened before: That morning I was quite content. I
had written the essay the previous evening, I had finished washing the clothes and Id gone to bed
early. Now I was anxious to go to school.
NB. Mai mult ca perfect: always past perfect
Past perfect: mai mult ca perfect, perfect compus, imperfect.
THE PERFECT PROGRESSIVE FORMS
It should be stated from the beginning that the use of the continuous aspect with the perfect forms is similar
to the interaction of this aspect with other tense forms. Again, it is a matter that depends rather on the aspectual class
of the verb phrase.
When combined with the progressive, event verb phrases (accomplishments and achievements) turn into
processes and the completion / result meaning is suspended. Compare:
I have pumped up three tires. (The job is completed)
I have been pumping up tires in the garage for the last quarter of an hour. (I haven't finished the job yet)
Although the perfect progressive never refers to a 'present result', it may imply that the effects of a certain
action are still apparent at present. The activity described by the verbal form does not necessarily carry on at present;
on the contrary, quite often it is implied that the respective activity has just stopped: You've been walking too fast.
That's why you're tired.
Process verb phrases in the present perfect have the tendency to appear in the progressive as well. When
they do, the continuous aspect simply reinforces the idea of continuity of an activity: He's been sleeping since ten
o'clock. It's time he woke up.
Non-durative process verbs phrases (i.e. the semelfactives) acquire an iterative meaning: She's been
knocking at my window for two minutes.
Finally, state verb phrases of the locative type in the progressive develop a 'temporary or limited duration'
meaning: I have been living in this castle for weeks now.
Apart from these meanings, the perfect progressive also carries an emotive reading, conveying 'irritation':
You've been asking for money over and over again.
MEANS OF EXPRESSING FUTURITY

If present and past situations are conceived of as facts, it is certainly not the case of future events, which
have not happened yet and therefore merely translate into potential, possible courses of action. Thus, we can predict
what will happen, we can express intentions, plans, promises or threats that we mean to carry out in the future, and
these situations describe our attitude towards possible, non-factual states of affairs. Therefore, it is no surprise that
almost all the linguistic forms that express future time belong, in fact, to the sphere of modality or to the aspectual
paradigm. Epistemic will and shall, for instance, are modal verbs denoting predictions; it is in the very nature of
predictions to describe what might happen in the future, hence, they are used to express future events. Actually, all
epistemic uses of the modal verbs refer to people's present attitudes with respect to the future time sphere: The
meeting can / may / must / shall / will, etc. take place tomorrow.
It is only natural for future events / states to have modal or aspectual implications since "we cannot be as
certain of future happenings as we are of events past and present, and for this reason, even the most confident
prognostication must indicate something of one speaker's attitude and so be tinged with modality" (Ioana Stefanescu,
English Morphology II, 1988, pp. 302).
In fact, the only linguistic form that denotes a future event and has temporal sense alone - that is, it does not
reflect any attitude on the part of the speaker - is the simple present tense combined with a future time adverbial.
Apart from the simple present, there are five other linguistic forms that, beside their basic modal or
aspectual quality, contain a future time implication:
1) Present Tense Simple
2) Present Tense Continuous
3) Be Going To
4) Future Tense Simple
5) Future Tense Continuous
6) Future Perfect (Simple and Continuous)

PRESENT TENSE SIMPLE

As already discussed in the chapter on the values of the simple present, this tense denotes the future either
in subordinate clauses of time and condition or in main clauses, being generally accompanied by a future time
adverbial. The presence of the simple present instead of a will / shall construction in the subordinate is justified by
the fact that the situation contained in this clause is taken as a given fact, not as a prediction. The reasoning behind
such structures would be: "If X is a fact, then I predict Y.'
Similarly, the simple present in main clauses denotes future facts, not possible future events. We attribute
to such sentences the same degree of certainty we would attribute to present or past events. Therefore, constructions
with the simple present describing a future event are restricted to certain areas, like statements about the calendar,
programs or itineraries regarded as immutable:
Tomorrow is Friday. / School starts on Monday / next week. / We leave for Brasov tomorrow morning.
Since such arrangements are supposed to be unalterable, it is easy to understand why they are normally
collective or impersonal - made by official authorities, committees, a court of law, etc.
There is an entire range of verbs commonly used in such contexts, verbs associated with announcements
about timetables, schedules or organized events: start, begin, end, leave, set off, come, go, depart, arrive, etc.
If we consider that the simple present with future value describes a definite occasion in the future in the
same way the simple past refers to a definite occasion in the past, we have an explanation for the obligatory presence
of the future time adverbial in such sentences, unless reference time is provided by the context (like, for instance, in
a narrative sequence).
Future events expressed by means of the simple present are assumed to take place without fail; therefore,
we might say that the simple present with future value presents the highest degree of certainty as to the occurrence
of a certain action in the future.

PRESENT TENSE CONTINUOUS

When used with future value, the continuous present signals a future event anticipated by virtue of a
present plan, program or arrangement, generally aiming at the near rather than the distant future; hence, the

suggestion of imminence of these constructions. At the same time, this does not mean that there are no present
progressive sentences referring to the remote future; they exist in as far as we make reference to remote future
events determined in advance:
I'm taking Mary shopping tomorrow.
He's getting married in September.
When I grow up, I'm joining the fire brigade.
The verbs that enter such constructions are generally verbs of 'doing', involving conscious human agency.
On the other hand, it is obvious that the continuous present with future value will not combine with state verbs
normally incompatible with the progressive aspect. Compare:
Hillary is rising at 6.00 tomorrow to prepare breakfast for the kids.
*The sun is rising at 6.00 tomorrow.
In the first example we interpret Hillary as the agent who has deliberately made this plan, which is, in fact,
reinforced by the presence of the purpose clause 'to prepare breakfast for the kids'. In contrast, the second example
sounds absurd because the sunrise can't be planned, it is determined by natural law.
The continuous present with future value is close in meaning to the going to form, since they express an
arrangement or an intention. However, while the going to form is used in a wider variety of contexts and not
necessarily with a time adverbial, the present continuous refers only to very definite arrangements, mostly in the
near future, and thus is always accompanied by a future time expression:
Are you going to the auction tomorrow?
Yes, I'm going, but I'm not going to buy anything.
We might consider that there is a slight difference of emphasis between the two structures in a pair like:
I'm going to have lunch with Jim tomorrow.
I'm having lunch with Jim tomorrow.
The first sentence reflects the speaker's present state of mind and it may well be the case that Jim has no
idea about the speaker's plan. The second sentence refers to an arrangement already made in the past, hence the
implication that both the speaker and Jim know about it. It is only the second sentence that the speaker could offer as
an excuse for not joining a friend for a game of snooker.

BE GOING TO
The general meaning attached to this linguistic form is that of 'future fulfillment of the present'; this extends
to two more specific meanings: 'future fulfillment of present intention' and "future fulfillment of present cause'.
Going to with the first meaning is restricted to human, or at least animate subjects endowed with will that
can, thus, express their intentions. The kind of verbs admitted in such structures are, again, verbs of 'doing'
('agentive' verbs) that imply conscious exercise of the will, and not state verbs:
The detective is going to ask you a few questions.
What are you going to do with the money?
I've reminded you once; I'm not going to do it again.
Though its nature brings it closer to the idea of imminence, going to can be used to refer to periods remote
from the moment of speaking: I am going to be a teacher when I grow up.
Going to can be paraphrased by intend, but with a slight difference in meaning. I'm going to participate in
the board meeting tomorrow is distinct from I intend to participate in the board meeting tomorrow in the sense that
the former has a higher degree of certainty, the expectation that this will happen is stronger than in the latter.

We should distinguish between the going to expressing intention and the will + infinitive construction
having the same meaning. Very often either of the two can be used; yet, when the intention is clearly premeditated,
we employ the going to form, and when it is clearly unpremeditated we use will + infinitive:
I've hired a typewriter and I am going to learn to type.
A lot of paint was delivered here today. Are you going to redecorate your kitchen?
You look frozen. Sit down by the fire and I'll make you some tea.
Did you remember to book seats? / Oh no, I forgot. I'll telephone for them now.
The second meaning of going to - that of 'future fulfillment of present cause' - is less restrictive both in
point of subject choice and choice of verb class. Thus, the subject can be either animate or inanimate and the
expression can occur with both 'agentive' and 'non-agentive' / 'state' verbs:
She is going to have a baby next month.
There's going to be a riot in this village.
I think I'm going to cry.
It's going to rain.
In all the above examples the underlying assumption is that factors already at work at present are inevitably
leading to a certain future state of affairs. For instance, a sentence like It's going to rain would be uttered if the
speaker saw black clouds already gathering in the gloomy sky.
Bearing this in mind, it is easy to understand why going to refers to the immediate future and is also named
'current orientation' be going to: Look out! The glass is going to fall! ('I can see it already tottering').
'Current orientation' going to contrasts with prediction will to the extent that the going to form carries this
sense of inevitability. Compare:
The soup will cool soon.
The soup is going to cool soon.
If the first sentence makes a prediction, counseling patience, the second should be interpreted as a warning
for the addressee to, perhaps, hurry and eat it before it cools.

FUTURE TENSE SIMPLE

There is no future tense in modern English, but for convenience shall and will combined with the bare
infinitive are designated as future tense simple. Shall and will are, in fact, modal verbs that express prediction,
therefore something that involves the speaker's judgment and is directly related to the future time sphere. Students
must take into account the fact that shall and will also have other modal meanings (see chapter on Modal Verbs);
they can express promises, threats, refusals, etc. and still refer to a future event.
Shall has a neutral predictive meaning only when used with the first person singular or plural: I shall never
have the opportunity to thank him. In American English it is used in formal contexts: We shall never surrender to
the terrorists.
Shall / will with predictive meaning appear in various contexts. They may express the speaker's opinions,
speculations and assumptions about the future (used after verbs such as doubt, expect, hope, believe, think, etc.):
Perhaps I'll find another teacher after this.
I will know him when I see him.
I'm sure / I suppose they won't agree to our project.
I expect the train will be late.
They are also specific of sentences with subordinates of condition and time, in which case the main clause
contains the future structure and the subordinate employs a simple present (see chapter on the values of the simple
present):
If I throw this plate against the wall, it will smash into pieces.

Birds will start to sing when spring comes.

Those verbs not normally used in the progressive will combine with the simple future: verbs of perception,
cognitive verbs, verbs of possession, etc.
You'll have plenty of time to finish your book.
He'll be there by tomorrow.
They'll find out about your plans tonight.
The future simple is mainly present in newspapers and on TV in news broadcasts when formal
announcements or announcements about the weather are made. In fact, in everyday conversation the listener will use
other means of expressing such future events, such as the going to form or the present continuous for plans:
Newspaper: The Queen will visit the southern part of the country tomorrow.
Reader: The Queen is visiting / is going to visit the southern part of the country tomorrow.
Generally, shall / will + infinitive does not appear without a time adverbial for obvious reasons. As already
mentioned, the modals in themselves do not express future time, they simply suggest a prediction. It is the adverbial
that places this prediction in time; otherwise the sentence is factually empty. Thus, there is no point in saying *it will
rain without mentioning when it will happen.

FUTURE TENSE CONTINUOUS

As it combines with the progressive aspect, this structure will naturally refer either to an activity in
progress at a specific point in time (i.e. in the future) or to a temporary arrangement, again in the future. In this
respect, future tense continuous matches the patterns of the present or past continuous:
This time next week I'll be teaching them grammar.
I'd better move the computer in my room. I'll be working in there next week.
Apart from these normal uses, future tense continuous has a special meaning that applies to a single event
viewed in its entirety and not as going on at a point around which it creates a temporal frame. This use eliminates
any idea of intention, volition or plan. It suggests that the event predicted by shall / will will occur independently of
the will of the people involved in it as part of the ordinary course of events or as a matter of routine. That is why this
tense has been labeled 'future-as-a-matter-of-course':
Stand here, they'll be changing the guard in a minute and you'll get a good view.
In fifty years' time we'll be living entirely on pills.
When I get home my dog will be sitting at the door waiting for me.
There is a contrast between future tense continuous and present tense continuous with future value:
He is seeing the doctor tomorrow.
He'll be seeing the doctor tomorrow.
The first example suggests that he has deliberately arranged a meeting with the doctor, while the second
example implies that their meeting is part of the ordinary course of events (perhaps they work or do business
together).
We can make even a further distinction between the two if we compare:
I'm giving a lesson at 3.00 p.m. tomorrow.
I'll be giving a lesson at 3.00 p.m. tomorrow.
The first sentence states that the lesson will begin at the time mentioned, whereas the second suggests that
the lesson may have already begun and is in progress at the respective time.

On the other hand, we can contrast future tense continuous with the will + infinitive construction as well as
their negative counterparts; in both cases, the opposition is between a future with intention and a future without
intention. Compare:
I'll phone mum and tell her about your plans.
I'll be phoning mum and I'll tell her about your plans.
The gardener won't cut down the tree. He says that it is perfectly all right as it is.
The gardener won't be cutting the grass for some time, as I've got a lot of other jobs for him to do first.
In the first sentence the speaker announces a deliberate future action that will occur as a result of his
wishes; in the second example the speaker implies that the talk on the phone will take place either as a matter of
routine or for reasons that have nothing to do with the interlocutor's plans. Similarly, won't cut denotes a refusal,
while won't be cutting suggests that the gardener's program requires otherwise.
In interrogative constructions, will + infinitive can express an invitation, a request or a command; the use of
future tense continuous renders the question neutral, bearing no imposition on the part of the speaker:
Will you please take the dog out for a walk? (request)
Will you be taking the dog out for a walk? (question only)
Since they are more polite and more tactful and do not put pressure on the addressee, such structures have
become more frequent in every day conversation.
On the other hand, there are restrictions in the use of this linguistic form. It cannot describe sudden, violent
or abnormal events, as they cannot be interpreted as part of a routine: *The terrorists will be killing the President
tomorrow. Still, this use has been speculated in colloquial English with humorous or ironic effects. Idioms such as
'You'll be losing your head one of these days' or 'Whatever will he be doing next?' suggesting comic exasperation,
are quite common in everyday speech.

FUTURE PERFECT TENSE SIMPLE / CONTINUOUS

These structures are used to denote future events that take place before other future events or before a
certain future moment. Generally, they occur with a time expression beginning with by:
By the end of the term I will have read all the twelve volumes.
The police will have heard of the theft by this time.
On October 21st they will have been married for twenty-five years.
When the focus does not concentrate on the result, but rather on the continuity of the action, we use the
progressive form:
By the end of the day I will have been working for ten hours. (continuous action)
By the end of the month he will have been teaching students for a year. (repeated action)
Future perfect can also be used to express an assumption on the part of the speaker: You won't have heard
the news, of course.

FUTURE -IN-THE-PAST FORMS

In case sentences have a past time axis, all the future time expressions are modified according to the change
of context and indicate future in the past situations. This happens either in narratives or when applying indirect /
reported speech rules:
He was going to tell her what we had done.
They were leaving town the next day.
She said she would call me later that week.

If be going to is considered the most common form used to express future in the past, would is preferred in
literary style.

OTHER FUTURE TIME EXPRESSIONS

There are other ways of referring to the future, which are both formal (to be to, to be about to and to be due
to) and colloquial (to be on the point of, to be near to, to be ready to, to be on the verge of / on the brink of).
To be to is similar in meaning to have to / ought to and describes formal arrangements made as a result of
an order / command. In He is to return to England tomorrow the most likely meaning is that he has received explicit
order to go back there. When it denotes an official arrangement or plan, it is similar to the simple present with future
value, except that, unlike the latter, it can retain its future meaning even when it is not accompanied by a future time
adverbial:
The chairman of the board is to meet union officials (tonight).
The chairman of the board meets union officials tonight.
To be about to and to be on the point of both refer to imminent actions and the former is used to replace the
more colloquial going to in formal contexts: I think the play is about to start now. / I am just on the point of
proposing to her.
To be due to refers to scheduled times: The ceremony is due to begin in ten minutes. / His flight is due at
7.35 a.m.