# I’m gonna go to bed.



## Hiden

Which does the ‘be going to’ in the following example express, a decision made at the time of speaking or a decision made before the time of speaking?

I think the best thing to do with a bad day like this is end it. I’*m gonna* go to bed. (Scenario in _The Omen_, 1976)​
Thank you in advance.

_<Edited by moderator (Florentia52) to remove out-of-scope request>_


----------



## grassy

Why do you ask? It would take someone with mind-reading skills to answer that question.


----------



## dojibear

Hiden said:


> Which does the ‘be going to’ in the following example express, a decision made at the time of speaking or a decision made before the time of speaking?


The sentence does not describe (or imply) the time that the decision was made.


----------



## JulianStuart

Crossed with grassy (in agreement)
Could be either.  If it was only a few nanoseconds before speaking it would be OK - that's not really different from "decision made at the time of speaking".  There are "rules" out there that try to tell learners there is always a "correct" choice between "will" and "be going to".  Don't believe them!


----------



## Hiden

Thank you, everyone. It is often said in linguistics that "will" for intention normally used for a decision made now whereas "be going to" for intention is normally used for a decision made before now. Following on from this, the _be going to_ in the example expresses a decision made before now. However, I believe the example expresses a decision made now. Although, it's hard to tell whether the speaker made the decision in that moment, or if they already planned to do so whenever the opportunity arose...if that makes sense. Usually you can only guess at whether a decision was premeditated or spur of the moment


----------



## JulianStuart

Hiden said:


> Thanks, everyone. It is often said in linguistics that "will" for intention normally used for a decision made now whereas "be going to" for intention is normally used for a decision before now. Following on from this, doesn't the _be going to_ in the example express a decision before now?
> 
> However, I believe it's a decision made at the time. Although, it's hard to tell whether the speaker made the decision in that moment, or if they already planned to do so whenever the opportunity arose...if that makes sense. Usually you can only guess at whether a decision was premeditated or spur of the moment


How long a duration does "now" have?  "It is often said in linguistics" - that is the "rule" I was advising against following rigorously (most natives don't follow it - it's a guidance that is sometimes useful in SOME contexts).
In this case, does it matter whether the decision was made a second before speaking or five nanoseconds etc?  No.  It would never occur to me to ask in this context  - that's how bad a "rule" it is.  There are at least a bazillion threads on will versus going to.


----------



## dojibear

I have heard about one rule in the other direction: 

If a future event is already scheduled, people tend to say "is going to" instead of "will", or use present tense instead of future tense:  _Next Sunday, the Tigers play the Lions._

But this is "scheduled and publicly announced in advance", not "decided in your head 5 minutes ago".

And this is "people to say", not "everyone says" or "everyone must say".

English often has 2 or more ways to say the same thing. Native speakers are comfortable with that. Some learner are not, and try to determine exact rules for "when to say each thing".


----------



## Hiden

Thank you for your insight, everyone. Very much appreciated.


----------



## elroy

Hiden said:


> Which does the ‘be going to’ in the following example express, a decision made at the time of speaking or a decision made before the time of speaking?


I interpret it as the former.


----------



## Hiden

Thank you. That helps.   

In the example, the speaker probably uses “be going to,” preferring style over rules.


----------



## Andygc

It's nothing to do with "styles" and "rules". Native speakers do not use "rules". "I'm going to go to bed" is a perfectly normal way of stating an intention to do something in the immediate future. Context tells the reader or listener when the person decided on the course of action. In any case, the decision must have been made before the statement, but the time between decision and statement might have been only a few microseconds.


----------



## Hiden

Thank you for your insight. I thought it might have something to do with individual's style i.e., “parole”. Parole signifies the act of speaking in actual situations by an individual.  

---------

Langue and parole (language and speech).

Both terms were introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure and came to exercise considerable influence in linguistics and literary theory. _Langue_ (language) is the language system shared by a speech community and according to Saussure the genuine topic of linguistics, whereas _parole_ (speech) signifies the act of speaking in actual situations by an individual. The dichotomy _langue - parole_ is not identical, but very similar to Noam Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance and is sometimes reflected in the modern contrast of systematic and applied linguistics.​


----------



## Loob

Hiden, in case it helps, I'd say that "will" wouldn't have worked in the original  context.



Hiden said:


> I think the best thing to do with a bad day like this is end it. I’*m gonna* go to bed. (Scenario in _The Omen_, 1976)



_I'm going to go to bed _implies the speaker has taken a decision independently.
_I'll go to bed_ would imply - at least to me - that he's acquiescing to someone else's (possibly unspoken) wish.


----------



## Hiden

As always thank you, Loob-san.

You and Andygc-san seem to interpret the example from the movie as expressing a decision before.


----------



## Andygc

The thought (the decision to act) must occur before the spoken word that says what the act will be - if it did not, there would be nothing to say.


----------



## elroy

I don’t agree. The decision and the spoken word can occur (near) simultaneously.  That’s how I understand the original.


----------



## Loob

Hiden said:


> As always thank you, Loob-san.
> 
> You and Andygc-san seem to consider the example from the movie as expressing a decision before.


I'm not sure what you mean by "before". My point wasn't related to timing; it was related to the independence of the decision. Decisions can be made hours  before speaking; they can also be made as you open your mouth to speak.

Trying to relate "going to" to a particular timeline is pointless, I'm afraid.


----------



## Hiden

Thank you. I meant "a decision made before the time of speaking".


----------



## elroy

I agree that "gonna" (or "going to") can be used in both scenarios.  I'm only saying that _in this particular case_, I interpret the decision as being made at the time of speaking.  This is due to the context, not to "gonna."


----------



## Hiden

I had asked a linguist about this before I posted this question. He had the same idea as elroy-san. He told me that it clearly expresses a decision made at the time of speaking.


----------



## Andygc

elroy said:


> I don’t agree. The decision and the spoken word can occur (near) simultaneously.  That’s how I understand the original.


There's a simple psycho-physiological reason why they can be *nearly *simultaneous but not simultaneous. Turning a thought into action takes time. The brain cannot initiate the motor activity that moves muscles to create words until the thought has occurred. There is always a time lag between thought and action. In the case of somebody thinking "I'm going to crash into that car" the delay before starting to move the foot onto the brake pedal is about 0.7 seconds. It would be a difficult experiment to study the time lag between a decision to go to bed and saying "I’m gonna go to bed", but the two cannot occur simultaneously.


elroy said:


> This is due to the context, not to "gonna."


As I said earlier.


Andygc said:


> Context tells the reader or listener when the person decided on the course of action.


But I'm perfectly happy to agree that the speaker in the OP probably made the decision to go to bed immediately before he spoke.


----------



## Hiden

Thank you for your insightful feedback, everyone. You've been helpful. I will think some more.


----------



## elroy

I wasn't splitting scientific hairs.  In ordinary perception and for practical language-learning purposes, those nanoseconds are immaterial, and giving them undue importance is misleading.  The bottom line is that there's a significant and important difference between "Wow, I didn't realize I'd be tired by now.  But I am!  I'm gonna go to bed!" and "All right, it's 8:00 and I said I'd go to bed at 8:00, so I'm gonna go to bed."


----------



## Hiden

elroy said:


> I wasn't splitting scientific hairs.  In ordinary perception and for practical language-learning purposes, those nanoseconds are immaterial, and giving them undue importance is misleading.


I was thinking exactly the same thing as elroy-san.


----------



## Loob

I think what this discussion boils down to is that this:


Hiden said:


> It is often said in linguistics that "will" for intention normally used for a decision made now whereas "be going to" for intention is normally used for a decision made before now.


is not a helpful distinction.

I'm pretty sure that conclusion's echoed in earlier threads, too


----------



## Hiden

Loob said:


> I think what this discussion boils down to is that this:
> 
> is not a helpful distinction.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that conclusion's echoed in earlier threads, too


Thank you for your insight. According to the linguist I asked, the distinction is langue and the "be going to" in the example is parole.


----------



## Loob

Hiden said:


> Thank you for your insight. According to the linguist I asked, the distinction is langue and the "be going to" in the example is parole.


I'm afraid that doesn't make any sense to me.

Surely the real point is that attempts to distinguish between *will* and *going to* based on 'timing of decision' are simply inadequate?


----------



## Hiden

I think the linguist says that the examples that do not follow this rule should be treated as parole.


----------



## Loob

It really isn't a rule, Hiden....


----------



## Hiden

Thank you for your insight. That helps. I will think some more.


----------



## Hiden

Loob said:


> _I'm going to go to bed _implies the speaker has taken a decision independently.
> _I'll go to bed_ would imply - at least to me - that he's acquiescing to someone else's (possibly unspoken) wish.


Loob-san, I understand that “I will go to bed” would not work. I agree that “I’ll go to bed now” is more likely the result of acquiescence. I also agree that “I’m gonna/going to go to bed” is the result of an independent decision and in this case not open to discussion or the other person to convince her otherwise.

How does (2) sound? Can I use (2) *to express the same meaning as (1)*?

(1) I think the best thing to do with a bad day like this is end it. *I’m going to go to bed.*​(2) I think the best thing to do with a bad day like this is end it. *I think I’ll go to bed*.​


----------



## Hiden

Loob said:


> It really isn't a rule, Hiden....


I wanted to say that if it's true that 'will' for intention is used for a decision made now whereas 'be going to' for intention is used for a decision made before now, then (1) is treated as parole.


----------



## JulianStuart

Hiden said:


> I wanted to say that *if it's true* that 'will' for intention is used for a decision made now whereas 'be going to' for intention is used for a decision made before now, then (1) is treated as parole.


The vast majority of English speakers, and probably most of the forum members, know nothing of the concepts of langue and parole.  We distinguish, however, between written and spoken English, but the _will/going to_ decision is _not_ related to, or reflected in,  that difference.  It will not be a profitable use of time to try to determine, _from the speaker's choice,_ when they _actually_ made the decision.  In _some_ cases, the speaker's choice will be influenced by the timing, but in the _large majority_ of instances, they can be used interchangeably and the choice is style/preference and not based on the "rule".


----------



## Hiden

JulianStuart said:


> The vast majority of English speakers, and probably most of the forum members, know nothing of the concepts of langue and parole.  We distinguish, however, between written and spoken English, but the _will/going to_ decision is _not_ related to, or reflected in,  that difference.  It will not be a profitable use of time to try to determine, _from the speaker's choice,_ when they _actually_ made the decision.  In _some_ cases, the speaker's choice will be influenced by the timing, but in the _large majority_ of instances, they can be used interchangeably and the choice is style/preference and not based on the "rule".


Thank you for answering my constant questions. You have been helpful.


----------



## Keith Bradford

These "rules" are made after the event, by theoreticians, on the basis of (how much?) data, for the purpose of teaching foreigners.  Unfortunately  nobody teaches them to three-year-old native learners of English. So we all go on throughout our lives totally ignorant of them.

I sometimes wonder how I've survived over 70 years of speaking English without realising that "will" for intention is normally used for a decision made now, whereas "be going to" for intention is normally used for a decision made before now.  I don't think it's true, or if it is true it's totally unimportant.


----------



## Florentia52

Keith Bradford said:


> …that "will" for intention is normally used for a decision made now, whereas "be going to" for intention is normally used for a decision made before now.


I don’t think it is. I can think of many contexts where someone is wrestling with a decision and then announces, finally, “I’m just going to do X.” Or if I’ve been sitting at my desk all morning and need to stretch my legs I might say “I’m going to go for a walk.” Conversely, I might be discussing travel plans with a friend and say “We’ll head to London first, and then go on to Yorkshire.”


----------



## lingobingo

In practice, of course, most people (those who don’t use the dreaded *gonna*!) would probably say “*I’m going to bed*” – not I’m going *to go* to bed.


----------



## Hiden

As always, thank you for your insight, everyone. That really helps.

Could anyone give me some more examples of "*be going to*" which *clearly* express "*a decision made at the time of speaking*"?


----------



## sound shift

Hiden said:


> Could anyone give me some more examples of "*be going to*" which *clearly* express "*a decision made at the time of speaking*"?


There must be thousands of possibilities.

Just one: "I'm going to stop now and continue with it tomorrow."


----------



## Hiden

Thank you for the example, sound shift-san. That helps.

A.J. Tomson & A.V. Martinet state in A Practical English Grammar that when the intention is neither clearly premeditated nor clearly unpremeditated, either "be going to" or "will" may be used. The example I quoted from the movie could be considered as another example of what they refer to.


----------



## JulianStuart

Hiden said:


> A.J. Tomson & A.V. Martinet state in A Practical English Grammar that *when the intention is neither clearly premeditated nor clearly unpremeditated,* *either* "be going to" or "will" may be used.


An honest statement and it covers most of the times where there is a choice!  In most cases, the information about "when" the "decision" was made is not relevant to, or useful/helpful for, the intended meaning:  It is rarely the case that a speaker will choose one option specifically to communicate the timing of when the decision was made.


----------



## Hiden

Thank you for insightful feedback. 

We'd never use "will" in the context of the example from the film, so there must be more factors at play than a style choice by the speaker.

Again, thanks. I have learned something.


----------



## JulianStuart

Hiden said:


> Thank you for insightful feedback.
> 
> We'd never use "will" in the context of the example from the film, so there must be more factors at play than a style choice by the speaker.
> 
> Again, thanks. I have learned something.


The choices in #31 are both fine and acceptable. Neither of those (nor the OP film quote) is intended to tell the speaker when the decision was made.  In any case, are you thinking of a "general" decision about how to end bad days, or this specific instance of a bad day?  

Another choice would be: I think the best thing to do with a bad day like this is end it, so I'll ({=I will}  I’*m gonna* go to bed

Do you read sentences like the one in the OP and actively try to determine when the speaker made a decision?  How often do you think you would want to communicate that specific information to a listener?


----------



## Hiden

JulianStuart said:


> The choices in #31 are both fine and acceptable. Neither of those (nor the OP film quote) is intended to tell the speaker when the decision was made.  In any case, are you thinking of a "general" decision about how to end bad days, or this specific instance of a bad day?
> 
> Another choice would be: I think the best thing to do with a bad day like this is end it, so I'll ({=I will}  I’*m gonna* go to bed
> 
> Do you read sentences like the one in the OP and actively try to determine when the speaker made a decision?  How often do you think you would want to communicate that specific information to a listener?


Thank you. I thought that Loob-san had said in #13 that "will" was unacceptable in the original context because it is more likely the result of acquiescence.

If "I'll go to bed" is also acceptable in the original context, then I think the example can be considered as another example of what Tomson & Martinet refer to.


----------



## JulianStuart

Hiden said:


> If "I'll go to bed" is also acceptable in the original context, then I think the example can be considered as another example of what Tomson & Martinet refer to.


Whatever that is I think *they are also saying that a lot of the time it doesn't matter*.  That's also the HUGE message from people who speak English as their native language. You did notice that I added the word so in my version so there's no feeling of acquiescence. The books tend to describe trendencies and nuances as if they were rules.  The local logic and context are usually much more influential - as in Loob's nuance you mentioned.


----------



## Hiden

JulianStuart said:


> Whatever that is I thonk *they are saying that a lot of the time it doesn't matter*.  That's also the HUGE message from people who speak English as their native language. You did notice that I added the word so in my version so there's no feeling of acquiescence. The books tend to describe trendencies and nuances as if they were rules.  The local logic and context are usually much more influential - as in Loob's nuance you mentioned.


Yes, I was assuming that it had something to do with the addition of "so" that there is no feeling of acquiescence in your sentence. 

Again, thanks. I really appreciate your help.


----------

