2.6.5 will
Examples of errors:
Errors involving the use of will as an indicator of future time reference are discussed in 2.1 and 2.5.1. Although it is difficult to separate clearly the future and modal functions of will, it does have several uses where future time reference plays no part in the meaning. These uses all involve predications that are true at the.moment of speaking, either in a general or specific sense.
1. Will can indicate something that is habitual or characteristic due to the insistence or "strong volition" (Leech i971:78) of the subject. Here will is always stressed and indicates, as Leech points out,, a "feeling of exasperation at someone else's obstinacy".
He wíll stay out till all hours.
= He insists on staying out till all hours.
Leech also sees the use of will with first person subjects in sentences like the following as examples of this usage:
I wíll go to the party tonight, whether you like it or not!
This does involve strong volition, but in such cases the reference to future time is also clear; it cannot refer to the past or have general or universal time reference as in the first example, and may therefore be better considered a special use (due to the extra stress) of will referring to future time. The same is true of what Leech (1971:78-79) calls the use of will to indicate "weak volition" and "intermediate volition: these uses do involve volition, but since they can also be seen as real conditional sentences with elliptic if clauses, or as simple sentences with future time reference, they are probably better considered special meanings of will as a future auxiliary, e.g.:
weak volition
My chauffeur will help you.
He'll do anything for money.
Who will lend me a cigarette?intermediate volition
I'll write tomorrow.
We'll celebrate this very night.
We'll stop your pocket money if you don't behave.
2. Very similar, perhaps the same, as sense 1 is the use of will to express habit or characteristic behavior in sentences like:
He's normally polite but he'll use the foulest language in the pub!
He'll go all day without eating.
This will is not stressed.
3. Will is also used to indicate 'probability' in sentences like:
(The doorbell rings)
--That'll be the postman.
or
They'll be in New York by now.
In this usage will can be used with non-animate subjects as well:
The plane will have landed by now
All of these sentences clearly have present time reference, and will is equivalent to probably:
That's probably the postman.
They are probably in New York by now The plane has probably landed by now.
4. Will is sometimes used in negative sentences and questions to indicate what Leech (1971:80) calls "disposition". e.g.:
My watch won't work.
The window won't open.
Won't the car start?
In these sentences won't is equivalent to doesn't.
Won't is the usual form here, although Leech wants to include will in sentences like the following as examples of this usage:
The auditorium will seat 500 people
This will, though, can also be considered the normal "predictive" use in an elliptic real condition, e.g.:
If it is necessary, the auditorium will seat 500 people
Sentence (1) would seem to present a suitable context for will in sense 2, but nevertheless it sounds quite odd. The explanation for this seems to be that will here expresses characteristic behavior, but not inherent or totally predictable behavior or events. As Leech (1971:80) puts it, some events "are so utterly certain or predetermined that to talk in terms of their predictability is to introduce a superfluous element of doubt." In other words, this use of will requires that there be some element of doubt or contingency. Thus it is possible to say
Oil will float/floats on water.
Human beings will make/make mistakes.
and
Oil is heavier than water.
Human beings have two legs.
but not
*Oil will be heavier than water.
*Human beings will have two legs.
Floating on water and making mistakes are characteristic, but there is still some element of contingency involved (e.g. water must be mixed with or poured over water before it will float on it); being heavier than water and having two legs, on the other hand, leave no room for contingency. The same is true of Englishmen or Americans using English; this is considered not a characteristic but an inherent feature of being an Englishman or an Am6rican, and therefore will is not acceptable. (Of course there are Englishmen and Americans whose native language is not English, but in general we do not think of languages as characteristic but as part of being a Frenchman, an Englishman, etc.) Compare the following with (1), however:
I don't think I'll ever be able to drink ten beers in one night the way John will
The error in (2) is a malformation of the idiom had better rather than a misuse- of will. Will better is not a likely collocation. Had better is very close in meaning to should or ought to, though had better expresses a somewhat stronger sense of obligation and contains an implicit notion of threat (...or else!). Thus, in an emotional situation should and ought to are not strong and threatening enough to be likely in a sentence like:
You'd better shut your mouth!
On the other hand, if the implicit notion of threat is not appropriate, had better is unlikely, as in a sentence like
You should know better than that.
The author of (2) may have been thinking of the use of will to express immediate intention (cf. 2.1), e.g.:
I'll leave now.
This use of will does not occur with better, however.