Laying the Future Tense to rest: with reference to

Year 6 South Korean students at Primary Level.

ED7503

Cormac Gleeson
Student Number: 139046859

Contents
1

1
Introduction
...3
2 The case for avoiding the term of future tense in the Primary EFL
Classroom. 5
2.1 Time and the tenses used to describe
it..5
2.2 Inaccuracy of will + stem = The Future Tense ...
.... 6
2.3 Explaining future-oriented active verb forms..
.8
2.4 Future, modality, and conjunctions of time
....9
2.5 Teaching future-directed language forms ....
10
3 Future-oriented discourse for Year 6 South Korean Students at Primary
Level.12
3.1 6 Educational Series .
12
3.2 Suggestions for presenting futurity in an engaging and balanced way......
.....13
4
Conclusion
..15
Appendix .

16

References
...17

INTRODUCTION
Hudsons (2012) assertion to UK Secondary School Teachers of English that there is
no such thing as a future tense seems surprising for people like me accustomed to
the concept of a 3rd tense that goes alongside the present and past. Since Primary
level I learnt about the forms necessary to create it in English, Irish and German.
However, a careful examination of the mandatory verbal structures shows that for
the former language at least, this grammatical model is not valid.

In this paper, I will argue that the most effective way to teach the concept of futurity
is to do so without recourse to terms that link future to the tense system.
Traditional grammars associate the creation of a future tense as being linked with
will or shall + infinitive (Huddleston 1995, 174), but Swan (1998) points out that
the latter is becoming less commonly used in the UK (Swan 1998, 212). Therefore I
will not be referring to it directly in this essay.

Following this analysis, I will compare the implications of my investigation with how
South Korean EFL students at Year 6 level receive instruction. I will use 6
[pronounced / j /] (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b) as a guide for this, and I will also
occasionally be drawing on my experience of having worked before with this age
group.

This paper does not make the claim of comprehensiveness for how futurity is to be
dealt with in Primary Schools, since Teachers will naturally adapt educational

materials to suit their personality and interpretation of class needs. Also, 6

(Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b) is just one of several series that are used in South Korea
at this level. However, I have used textbooks that were quite similar to this when I
worked previously with Year 6, so I believe it should provide a useful insight of how
the discourse of the future is taught at this level.

2. THE CASE FOR AVOIDING THE TERM OF FUTURE TENSE IN THE PRIMARY
EFL CLASSROOM
2.1. Time and the Tenses used to describe it
Quirk & Greenbaum (1973) make a clear distinction between time and tense. They
point out that although time often is used by linguists and grammars, it is ultimately
not a linguistic term. On the other hand, the concern of tense is to create a kind of
match up with time and its three divisions of present, past, and future through verbs
(Quirk & Greenbaum 1973, 40).

Huddleston (1995) characterises tense as a system of the verb/ VP (verb phrase)

with terms differentiated inflectionally or by means of auxiliaries, where the primary
semantic contrast has to do with location in time, especially location relative to the
time of speaking (Huddleston 1995, 80,81). He explains the two latter clauses by
analysing the difference between the past and present simple forms of take the
bus, and observes that the past inflection refers to a circumstance that precedes
the current, whereas the second form is located in the contemporary (Huddleston
1995, 81).

It is notable that Huddleston (1995) describes tense as a system. Swan (1998)

seems to hold a similar view, for he does not describe one tense to account for the
present and past time divisions, but several -- delineating two for the former and six
for the latter (Swan 1998, 414, 456). His means for distinguishing between them

according to the particular time-spans of which they refer is also similar to

Huddlestons (1995) explanation.

Sinclair (2012) holds a somewhat different view on the subject, contending that all
three time divisions of present, past and future contain tenses within them. He
posits eight language forms in all that deal with future events, ranging from the
future simple will/ shall + stem, to more elaborate structures like the future
perfect continuous will/ shall have been + __ ing (Sinclair 2012, 765-766). Swan
(1998) makes no mention of tense when discussing these future-oriented
constructions, describing them instead as active affirmative forms (Swan 1998, 6).

2.2 INACCURACY OF WILL + STEM = THE FUTURE TENSE

Hudson (2012) points out that the concept of a future tense that is similar to its
counterparts in the present and past has proven difficult to shift. In South Korea,
there are several references to a Future Tense from Korean language teaching
books, with several references on how to create it (Kim and Hilts 2008, 33, Seung
2011, 215). Part of the reason for this durability may be that when will is used in
the future, there seems to be a tone of finality about it, with no ambiguity in the
content of the message itself, unless words of conditionality are involved. This can
be seen in forms like People will talk, or You will regret this (Willis and Wright
2004, 59). Huddleston (1995) makes a similar point, asserting that a will

oriented towards the present has more of a subjective tone to it than when it is used
in the future. (Huddleston 1995, 172).

Hudson (2012) argument for two tenses rests primarily on his assertion that the
verb will, which is often thought of as the creating mechanism for the future tense,
is a present tense, auxiliary verb that offers merely one way of speaking about
future events. Sinclair (2012) concurs with the view that
will is modal but argues that it also has an extra, special function which is to form
the future tense.
Like Hudson (2012), Huddleston (1995) is robust in his denial of a future tense. In
his analysis of the verb will, he views its primary function as modal auxiliary, not
tense auxiliary (Huddleston 1995, 133). In propounding the idea that will should
be considered first and foremost a modal verb, he cites the past inflections of will
and can (would, could) before going on to show that these verbs can be used
interchangeably (see appendix) He also points out that the future tense has no
unique formulation in the way the present [3 rd person singular add s to stem] and
past [regular verbs add ed to the stem] have (Huddleston 1995, 133).

Eastwood (2002) similarly observes that the past and present tenses have definitive
structures be and was with inflections that are consistently observable -- but
proposes that the reason futurity can never possess such a consistent conjugation is
because of the inherently uncertain nature of the concept itself (Eastwood 2002,
56). He develops his point on the precariousness of discussing the future by using it

as the primary explanation for why there are so many language forms available
when considering it, which include common expressions like the present continuous,
and going to + stem (Eastwood 2002, 69, 71).

Eastwood (2002) also contends that the will + stem form offers merely one way of
discussing the future, and argues that in some instances it is not the correct
language expression to use. For example, it is more appropriate to use going to
than will when making long term plans (Eastwood 2002, 55).

Swan (1998) also supports Eastwoods (2002) observation on the flexibility of

expression dealing with the future, noting that In many, but not all situations, two
or more structures are possible with similar meanings ( 1998, 219).

Although future tense is still a very commonly used term, the problems with it
when examined more closely bear out the thesis of Hudson (2012) and others like
Quirk and Greenbaum (1973), Huddleston (1995) and Eastwood (2002), that it is not
a credible linguistic concept like the tenses of the present and past. The most
compelling reason seems to be that, in contrast to Sinclairs (2012) view that the
primary function of the will + stem is to form a future tense, the grammatical
evidence infers that it is a present tense modal auxiliary verb (Hudson 2012). Its
past tense form of would also indicates that it should not be differentiated from
the other modals, several of which also have irregular inflections (Huddleston 1995,
133). As Eastwood (2002, 55) implies, without the existence of a de facto future

tense through the will + stem conjugation, grammatically it is possible only to

refer to the future via a tense system that comprises of present and past language
expressions.

2.3 EXPLAINING FUTURE-ORIENTED ACTIVE VERB FORMS

In this context, Sinclairs (2012) justification for the traditional three tenses appears
out-dated, when one considers the near total unanimity of grammars that oppose
the usage of the term of a future tense over the past 40 years (Quirk and
Greenbaum 1973, Huddleston 1995, Eastwood 2002, Hudson 2012). His verb
classification also seems somewhat counterproductive, in that it takes a system that
already seems to have a sufficient amount of tenses, and tries to squeeze in eight
more. However, if the future is to be tense-less, a reasonable issue to raise would
be how should commonly used verb forms like the future simple or more complex
constructions be categorised a problem unwittingly broached by Eastwood (2002).
Although he dismisses the existence of the future tense it does not stop him, when
describing the nature of events to come that have an ongoing nature, from referring
to the form used to discuss it as the future continuous (Eastwood 2002, 69). The
problem from an EFL learners perspective is that this could easily lead the student
to envision such active verb forms (Swan 1998, 6) as a tense, based on its
apparent similarity to the present continuous and the past continuous.

10

Quirk and Greenbaums (1973) account may offer a solution, since they delineate
the verb structure described by Eastwood (2002) as will + be + v_ing, with v
being an abbreviation of verb. This description is consistent with the authors
convictions of a tense-less future. Their explanation would appear to be more
useful than Eastwoods (2002), as they do not refer to verb structures that might
contradict their earlier argument for an exclusively past and present tense system
in any way (Quirk and Greenbaums 1973, 48-50). So as to present a more coherent
representation of a future vista that is beyond the system of tense, there would
seem to be some merit in categorising constructions like the future continuous and
time-related expressions like the perfect or the perfect continuous as futureoriented active verb forms (Swan 1998).

2.4. FUTURE, MODALITY, AND CONJUNCTIONS OF TIME.

Aside from future active verb forms, Eastwood (2002) states that there are a range
of expressions that can be generated to explore futurity. Many such
communications lack the surety of will and express widely varying degrees of doubt
depending on the choice of verb (Eastwood 2002, 65).

This takes us into the domain of mood and more specifically of the other modal
auxiliary verbs, independent of will, that can also be used to discuss the future.
So can is available if the communicator is unsure of the outcome of something
Lets have lunch together. We can go to that new restaurant (Eastwood 2002,
117). May and might are some other modal auxiliaries that can be used to
discuss futurity, with the former generally connoting a greater level of confidence
11

that a certain event will take place (Swan 1998, 323). Modals are not normally
used to signify incidents that definitely exist or that particular events have
definitely happened (Swan 1998, 334). They tend to deal with degrees of likelihood
of the verbal action taking, as well as dealing with offers, requests and obligations
(Quirk and Greenbaum 1973, 25).

Conjunctions of time offer further variations for discussing futurity. These moderate
the degree of ambiguity according to the speakers or writers choice. We will start
when we are ready is more open to question than the apparently factual statement
We will start (Willis and Wright 2004, 282). Verb phrases like about to, used when
the situation is very close to the present (Quirk and Greenbaum 1973, 30), or the
past conditional construction used for giving advice If I were you (Willis and
Wright 2004, 282) offer further evidence of a phenomenon that is best considered
as a destination with many entry points.

2.5. TEACHING FUTURE-DIRECTED LANGUAGE FORMS

This paper has suggested that instead of accepting the traditional notion of a future
tense generated by the conjugation of will+ verb stem, teachers would be better
served by attempting to get across the essential complexity and diversity of what it
means to discuss futurity in English, for the purposes of grammatical accuracy. The
exact language construction we choose will vary according to what it is we want to
communicate (Eastwood 2002, 65.) Although such an open-ended portrayal of
futurity might seem an overly challenging concept for ESL Primary School children
to understand, in the Korean context at least, mainstream textbooks with a strongly
12

communicative emphasis are taking a broader perspective for how future discourse
can be constructed (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b)

While this is a welcome development, it would appear to be important not to lose

sight of the value of the grammar out of which these forms find expression. So that
students could be encouraged to think of a future beyond tense, it might be prudent
to avoid using established language forms like the future progressive or perfect,
which could encourage learners to think that this time division has tenses in the
same way that the present and past do, and instead follow Quirke and Greenbaums
(1973) careful description (cf. 2.3) when approaching future active verb forms.
Harmer (1991 62) suggests a five-point plan for explicit teaching of these and other
grammatical structures. It would also be useful for students to rediscover its
importance for themselves by the use of inductively-driven lessons (Hall and
Shepheard 2001)

13

3. Future-oriented discourse for Year 6 South Korean

Students at Primary Level
3.1. 6 (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b) Educational Series
6 (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b) is an educational series that is used at my
workplace, and as far as I am aware, it is a popular choice of textbook among
Korean Primary schools. Although there is no direct reference to a future tense
(Choi 2011b), many expressions for discussing futurity are presented to students.
These include will+ stem, going to + stem, and What do you want to be (when
you grow up?) (Choi 2011a). Would is also covered, and is placed with will as
an interchangeable verb to be used when making an offer or an invitation (Choi
2011a, 181).

This wide repertoire for communicating on future events, coupled with an array of
interactive methodologies that get the children using the key expressions, often in
scenarios that mimic real-life, suggest that the author has not only an
understanding of the complexity of future discourse, but also good insights as to
how young students can utilise them effectively in social situations.

Underpinning the activities is a range of different methodologies that encourage a

communicative approach. These include CLT, Task Based Learning and The Natural
Approach (Choi 2011b, 9-12). Total Physical Response (TPR) activities are also
incorporated, the theory being that the children will acquire the forms more readily

14

if they use their bodies as well words to engage with the language forms (Krashen
and Tyrell 1983, cited by Richard 2001).

3.2. Suggestions for presenting futurity in an engaging and balanced way

The book certainly provides a large quantity of comprehensible input, or student
exposure to useful vocabulary and language forms, on the future. In this respect it
is quite similar to the series I operated from when I worked as an ESL Instructor with
grade 6. However, my sense was that even though the expressions were
introduced through attractive, child-friendly topics, many of the Korean students
had a difficult time with handling all the language forms being presented to them -a difficulty exacerbated by the fact that the associated grammatical explanation for
these language chunks was non-existent. This is particularly significant given that
in Korean, it is a relatively uncomplicated matter of adding one of two verbs endings
to switch the meaning from present to future (Seung 2011, Kim and Hilts 2008).

When exposing EFL students to unfamiliar language forms, Harmer (1991, 62)
suggests a five-point structural format of lead-in, elicitation, explanation, accurate
reproduction and immediate creativity. There does not seem to be any reason why
this approach could not be adopted towards teaching the going to + infinitive
structure, or will + infinitive. For the immediate creativity stage, it would be
possible to adapt slightly Harmers (1991, 89) airmail post lesson, so that it enables
students to practice instead using the will + stem structure in pairs. Children

15

(assuming they have a fair knowledge of the countries) could possibly create and
role-play a simple dialogue and ask at the end When will it get to France, the
USA? and so on.

For his elicitation stage, Harmer (1991, 71) suggests that a discovery learning
approach can be adopted instead of a Q & A format. Hall and Shepheard (2001) lay
great emphasis on this inductive method, asserting that students will be more likely
to remember something if they have the opportunity to find out for themselves.

Timelines representing how certain verb forms operate, for instance representing
the contrasts between how will + infinitive and present continuous operate in
future discourse, would probably help students gain a better understanding of when
to use these structures. Answers for filling in the timelines could be elicited from
the students. Facilitating a mixture of individual and pair work for activities and
error-correction could further engender a process of conscious-raising and discovery
learning, as well as promoting automaticity (Hall and Shepheard 2001, 9).

16

CONCLUSION
In this paper my main aim has been to propose, in agreement with several
grammars on the subject (Hudson 2012, Quirk and Greenbaum 1973, and
Huddlestone 1995), that the construction of a future tense through the will +
stem conjugation is inaccurate, since its primary task as a modal verb is to fulfil
functions of auxilary in keeping with the other verbs of its type. From this position I
argued that futurity should be considered as a destination with many entry points.
I also suggested that constructions involving language forms like future simple or
future continuous be termed as future-oriented active forms (Swan 1998, 6), so as
to avoid misleading EFL learners into thinking these are future tenses that are
analogous in function to their past and present counterparts. The main section
concluded with the proposal that the many conventions and nuances for referring to
the future in English were best taught in a structured, inductive way. In the third
section, I made some suggestions, based on the perspectives of Harmer (1991) and
Hall and Shepheard (2001), for how this could be done.

To conclude, I think Hall and Shepheards (2001) approach potentially offers an

innovative means for helping students learn more about how to discuss futurity. A
prudent adaptation of some of their ideas for the Korean context could enable an
effective methodology for future-orientated communication that is practiced in a
systematic, motivating and inductive way.

17

3283 words

Appendix

(Huddleston 1995, 133)

18

REFERENCES
Choi, H. G. (2011a) 6 Elementary School English 6. Seoul: YBM Publishing.
Choi, H. G. (2011b) 6 Elementary School English 6 Teachers Guide. Seoul: YBM
Publishing.
Eastwood, J. (2002) Oxford Practice Grammar With Answers. 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hall, N. and J. Shepheard (2001) The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. Singapore:
Longman.
Huddlestone, R. (1995) Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, D. (2012) Basic English Grammar For School Teachers Years 7-9 (KS3),
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/KS3.htm, [Accessed 06-14-2014].
Kim, M. and J. D. Hilts (2008) Lonely Planet Korean Phrasebook. Victoria: Lonely
Planet.
Quirk, R. and S. Greenbaum (1973) A University Grammar of English, London,
Longman.
Richards, J. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Seung, U. O. (2011) Korean Made Easy For Beginners. Seoul: Darakwon.
Sinclair, J. (2012) Collins Cobuild English Usage. Seoul: Harper Collins.
Swan, M. (1998) Practical English Usage. 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19

Tredigo, T. S. (1974) English Tense Usage: A Bulls Eye View ELT Journal, 28:2, 97107.
Willis D. and J. Wright (1986) Collins Cobuild Elementary English Grammar. Seoul:
Kyobo.

20