Understanding will and would
The modal verb will and its past form, would, get a guide to themselves because they are the source of a great deal of error, much of it, regrettably, teacher induced.
 |
A little history |
The words will and would derive from the same
Old English verb: wyllan.
The word wyllan is connected to the Old English willa
which meant mind, will, determination, purpose, pleasant thing.
Many connected words also meant something desirable such as
willspell (good tidings), willodlíce (willingly) and
willsele (a pleasant dwelling).
The verb wyllan had at least five distinct meanings:
- be about to (simple futurity)
- be willing to (promise)
- wish (hope)
- desire (want)
- be used to / used to (habit or repetition)
and all five meanings can be identified in Modern English:
- I will leave now (the sense of be about to)
- I will write soon (the sense of promise)
- Would that the rain stopped (the sense of wish)
- I will not have it! (the sense of desire)
- I would often walk the dogs there (the sense of habit or repetition of actions)
The words carried and still carry these meanings and it is the
polysemous nature of the verb which causes the problems. It
doesn't help if teachers and coursebook writers can't disentangle
the meanings, of course.
(Not discussed here is the transitive verb will meaning to
make something happen by the power of thought. Also left out
of this guide is the use of the verb will to mean leave as
a legacy or the noun will as in to make a will or
willpower. If those are thrown into the mix when the
modal auxiliary forms are being considered, learners will get confused.)
The modern word would is derived from the past tense (and
past subjunctive) of wyllan which was wolde.
The past simple and the past subjunctive were distinguishable in Old
English but in Modern English the tenses have the same form for all
verbs (except the verb be).
The confusion, therefore, arises because we can no longer
look at the form of the verb to distinguish between the subjunctive use of the verb (to express
conditionality or doubt), the predictive use of the verb (to express
futurity) and the volitional use of the verb (to express
willingness).
The past subjunctive appears in subordinate clauses, referring to
an unreal or improbable present or future event / state.
When we say, for example:
I wish my mother were
here
It looks as if she knew
him
I would go now if I were
you
we are using the past subjunctive form of the verb.
The past simple of will appears when we say, for
example:
He said his mother
would come tomorrow
which is the past of
He says his mother will come tomorrow
and
I knew there would
be a problem
which is the past of
I know there will be a problem
 |
The five central meanings |
We need to distinguish carefully between the five meanings of the Old English verb wyllan and its past and past subjunctive form to understand how the modern verbs will and would, function to make meaning.
 |
 |
Meanings 1 and 2: futurity vs. willingness |
 |
As we saw, the Old English verb signified futurity but also
willingness.
The modern English verb does the same and may signal pure futurity
or willingness (also known as volition) to do something. It is
not arguable that willingness generally refers to an action in the
future or the future in the past but signalling willingness refers
to the current situation, not to the future act
itself.
It is, to be fair, not always easy, but usually possible, to
untangle the two commonest meanings of will and would.
The problem arises when teachers or the materials they use confuse
these first two meanings of the verb.
Here are some examples of what is meant:
| Example | Comment | Use of will / would |
| Will you marry me? | This is not asking about the
future. This question is concerned with finding out
the addressee's current attitude. It does not require the responder to speculate about future events and will is not being used to refer to future time at all. It means Are you willing NOW to marry me? The question is about the present not the future. |
volition |
| Would you marry me if I were rich? | This is the same verb, with the
same meaning, with the subordinate clause in the
subjunctive. It means: Given an unlikely circumstance (my being rich), are you willing IN YOUR CURRENT IMAGINATION to marry me? |
|
| Will she marry him in September? | This is a question about the future
because it asks the hearer to speculate about the future. It is not asking whether she wants or is willing to marry before September but concerns the likelihood of the even happening in the future. |
futurity |
| She thought she would marry before she was thirty. | This also refers to the future but
to the future in the past. It is akin to the back-shifting
of tenses in reported or indirect speech such as in: He said he thought it would rain which is one way of reporting "I think it's going to rain" |
There are levels of volition:
- Weak volition with the verb unstressed and
often used in the 2nd person as in, for example:
Will you open the window, please?
He'd come if someone asks him
etc. - Medium-strength volition, often in the 1st
person and often implying a promise or undertaking of some kind.
For example:
I won't bother you with my troubles
We'd come early to help get things ready if you want
etc. - Strong volition, with the verb stressed,
often in the 3rd person and implying insistence which the
speaker disapproves of, usually. This form is
never contracted to 'll or 'd.
For example:
He will argue with me
He would drink too much at parties
(It is probably worth noting that the use of shall instead of will here means that it is the speaker's insistence not someone else's as in, e.g.:
She shall marry him!)
A special example of the difference in meaning comes when we
consider conditional sentences. The usual rule is that we can
only use will or would once in conditional
sentences (in BrE) so, for example:
I'll come if you call
is allowed, but
*I'll come if you will call
is not allowed
and
If you won the lottery, you would be able to marry her
is allowed, but
*If you would win the lottery, you would be able to marry
her
is not.
The rule works fine providing the meaning of the verb is concerned
with futurity or with an imaginable, if unlikely, or impossible
future.
However, it falls down as soon as we consider volition or
willingness. Then we can have, for example:
I'll come if you will do the driving
or
You would be healthier if you would cut down your smoking
In both these cases, we have the first verb referring to the future
(will come, would be) but the second (will do, would
cut down) referring to volition so repeating the verb (but
not its meaning) is allowable.
The two meanings are not always easily separable.
For example:
The problem in the middle lies with the intention of the speaker.
It may be a prediction about the future based on sound evidence or
it may be a medium-strength expression of willingness. Only the whole context
allows us to see which is meant.
The distinction is important because the intrinsic meaning of an
expression of willingness (which is a present reference) has to be
separated from the extrinsic meaning of inevitability concerning
future events (which is a proper future reference).
If we don't have this clear in our heads when we are setting the
language in context, we will induce errors in our learners.
A slightly more technical way of saying all this is:
- will and would used to talk about the future are in the realm of epistemic modality (i.e., referring the likelihood or otherwise of an event)
- will and would to talk about volition are in the realm of dynamic modality (i.e., referring to a person's ability or willingness)
For more examples, go to
the guide
to talking about the future in English.
For more on the distinction between types of modality refer to
the guide
to types of modality.
Both those guides are linked in the list at the end.
 |
 |
Meanings 3 and 4: wishes and desires |
 |
When we talk about wishes and desires, we are in the area of
unreal events. If it is currently raining, one can wish for it
to stop but not wish for it to start. If we are a smoker we
can wish we weren't but not wish we smoked.
These two ideas fall under two types of suasion:
- The optative:
directed at things we cannot personally affect or change - The hortative:
directed at changing someone else's behaviour (exhortative) or getting them to cooperate (cohortative)
- The optative
- The optative can be expressed using either will or
would,
although, because we are usually referring to unreal events
outside our control, would is more common in this function
and also occurs in the past as one would expect.
For example:
I wish it would rain
I hope it will rain
I wished he would say something
She wishes he will ask her
I hope the sun will shine
etc. - As can be seen from these examples, the optative use of the
verb is closely related to the epistemic uses we looked at
above. The verb is being used to talk about likelihood or
unlikelihood as well as the personal view of the desirability of
something.
- The hortative
- When we are trying to alter someone else's behaviour, or get
them to cooperate with ours, we can
do so from a position of authority (so are happy to use will)
or from a position of inferiority or equality (when would
is more useful because it distances and sounds more polite).
Because these are imperatives of a sort and threaten the face of
the hearer, they are often phrased
as interrogatives to allow the possibility of their being
refused.
For example:
Will you close the door, please?
Would you mind waiting?
Would you stop now?
Will you please get out?
Will you get that for me?
Would you like some cake?
I'd like to pay, now, please
I would rather stay, if you don't mind
I would sooner not do that
etc. - This use of the verb is more closely akin to the dynamic use of the verb seen in the examples above because it refers to people's willingness to do something, not the likelihood or otherwise of their doing it.
- As was noted, the hortative comes in two flavours and both can be expressed using will/would:
- Exhortative:
Will you get that for me?
Cohortative:
Would we be better working together?
There is more on suasion (the optative and hortative) on this site linked in the list of related guides at the end.
 |
 |
Meaning 5: habits, propensities and routines |
The original Old English verb, wyllan, was used to
express habits as well as what one is accustomed to. Both
meanings are alive in Modern English. Both forms of the verb,
will and would, are used in these senses.
As one might expect, will is used for present habits,
routines or
propensities and would for those in the past. Like
this:
- will
- For example:
Speeding drivers will be stopped by the police
that is what customarily happens (not necessarily a predicted future)
John will play the music loudly
that is his habit (from which I may draw conclusions about future behaviour)
Immigration officers will question travellers closely
that is their general behaviour
Burglars will often break into unoccupied houses
that is their modus operandi - would
- For example:
He would always argue the point
that was his general response
I would expect better work from a professional decorator
this is my current, but long-held, opinion
Well, he would, wouldn't he? (see reference a. below)
this is what we expect from him
When I was a child I would often have to stay late at school
this routinely happened to me (often expressed with used to)
etc.
For more on this, see the guide to talking about always, linked below.
| Related guides | |
| tenses | where you will find more on some of the tense forms mentioned above |
| talking about always | for more on would as an expression of routine (contrasted with used to) |
| talking about the future | for more on the need to distinguish between epistemic and dynamic modality with will |
| types of modality | for more on dynamic, epistemic, deontic and alethic modality |
| suasion | for more on optative and hortative expressions |
| context | where face-threatening acts are discussed |
| a lesson on will and would | this is in the learners' section of the site. Use it if you like. |
References:
a.: When the defence counsel at the trial
of Stephen Ward, pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or
having even met her, Mandy Rice-Davies replied, "Well (giggle)
he would, wouldn’t he?" This phrase was in
the third edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (1979).
Johnson, ML, 1927, A Modern English - Old English Dictionary,
available online at http://old-engli.sh/dictionary.php