Shall and will


Shall and will are two of the English modal verbs. They have various uses, including the expression of propositions about the future, in what is usually referred to as the future tense of English.
Historically, prescriptive grammar stated that, when expressing pure futurity, shall was to be used when the subject was in the first person, and will in other cases This rule is no longer commonly adhered to by any group of English speakers, and will has essentially replaced shall in nearly all contexts.
Shall is, however, still widely used in bureaucratic documents, especially documents written by lawyers. Owing to heavy misuse, its meaning can be ambiguous and the United States government's Plain Language group advises writers not to use the word at all. Other legal drafting experts, including Plain Language advocates, argue that while shall can be ambiguous in statutes, court rules, and consumer contracts, that reasoning does not apply to the language of business contracts. These experts recommend using shall but only to impose an obligation on a contractual party that is the subject of the sentence, i.e., to convey the meaning "hereby has a duty to."

Etymology

The verb shall derives from Old English sceal. Its cognates in other Germanic languages include Old Norse skal, German soll, and Dutch zal; these all represent *skol-, the o-grade of Indo-European *skel-. All of these verbs function as auxiliaries, representing either simple futurity, or necessity or obligation.
The verb will derives from Old English willan, meaning to want or wish. Cognates include Old Norse vilja, German wollen, Dutch willen, Gothic wiljan. It also has relatives in non-Germanic languages, such as Latin velle and voluptas, and Polish woleć. All of these forms derive from the e-grade or o-grade of Indo-European *wel-, meaning to wish for or desire. Within English, the modal verb will is also related to the noun will and the regular lexical verb will.
Early Germanic did not inherit any Proto-Indo-European forms to express the future tense, and so the Germanic languages have innovated by using auxiliary verbs to express the future. In English, shall and will are the auxiliaries that came to be used for this purpose.

Derived forms and pronunciation

Both shall and will come from verbs that had the preterite-present conjugation in Old English, meaning that they were conjugated using the strong preterite form as the present tense. Because of this, like the other modal verbs, they do not take the usual -s in Modern English's third-person singular present; we say she shall and he will – not *she shalls, and not *he wills. Archaically, there were however the variants shalt and wilt, which were used with thou.
Both verbs also have their own preterite forms, namely should and would, which derive from the actual preterites of the Old English verbs. These forms have developed a range of meanings, frequently independent of those of shall and will. Aside from this, though, shall and will are defective verbs – they do not have other grammatical forms such as infinitives, imperatives or participles.
Both shall and will may be contracted to -’ll, most commonly in affirmative statements where they follow a subject pronoun. Their negations, shall not and will not, also have contracted forms: shan't and won't.
The pronunciation of will is, and that of won't is. However shall has distinct weak and strong pronunciations: when unstressed, and when stressed. Shan't is pronounced in England, New Zealand, South Africa etc.; in North America it is pronounced, and both forms are acceptable in Australia.

[|Specific uses] of ''shall'' or ''will''

The modal verbs shall and will have been used in the past, and continue to be used, in a variety of meanings. Although when used purely as future markers they are largely interchangeable, each of the two verbs also has certain specific uses in which it cannot be replaced by the other without change of meaning.
The most common specific use of shall in everyday English is in questions that serve as offers or suggestions: "Shall I...?" or "Shall we...?" These are discussed under below.
In statements, shall has the specific use of expressing an order or instruction, normally in elevated or formal register. This use can blend with the usage of shall to express futurity, and is therefore discussed in detail below under.
Will is used to express habitual action, often action that the speaker finds annoying:
Similarly, will is used to express something that can be expected to happen in a general case, or something that is highly likely at the present time:
The other main specific implication of will is to express willingness, desire or intention. This blends with its usage in expressing futurity, and is discussed under. For its use in questions about the future, see.

Uses of ''shall'' and ''will'' in expressing futurity

Both shall and will can be used to mark a circumstance as occurring in future time; this construction is often referred to as the future tense of English. For example:
When will or shall directly governs the infinitive of the main verb, as in the above examples, the construction is called the simple future. Future marking can also be combined with aspectual marking to produce constructions known as future progressive, future perfect and future perfect progressive. English also has other ways of referring to future circumstances, including the going to construction, and in many cases the ordinary present tense – details of these can be found in the article on the going-to future.
The verbs will and shall, when used as future markers, are largely interchangeable with regards to literal meaning. Generally, however, will is far more common than shall. Use of shall is normally a marked usage, typically indicating formality and/or seriousness and expressing a [|colored meaning] as described below. In most dialects of English, the use of shall as a future marker is viewed as archaic.
Will is ambiguous in first-person statements, and shall is ambiguous in second- and third-person statements. A rule of prescriptive grammar was created to remove these ambiguities, but it requires that the hearer or reader understand the rule followed by the speaker or writer, which is usually not the case. According to this rule, when expressing futurity and nothing more, the auxiliary shall is to be used with first person subjects, and will is to be used in other instances. Using will with the first person or shall with the second or third person is asserted to indicate some additional meaning in addition to plain futurity. In practice, however, this rule is not observed – the two auxiliaries are used interchangeably, with will being far more common than shall. This is discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Prescriptivist distinction

According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, the distinction between shall and will as future markers arose from the practice of Latin teaching in English schools in the 14th century. It was customary to use will to translate the Latin velle ; this left shall to translate the Latin future tense. This practice kept shall alive in the role of future marker; it is used consistently as such in the Middle English Wycliffe's Bible. However, in the common language it was will that was becoming predominant in that role. Chaucer normally uses will to indicate the future, regardless of grammatical person.
An influential proponent of the prescriptive rule that shall is to be used as the usual future marker in the first person was John Wallis. In Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae he wrote: "The rule is to express a future event without emotional overtones, one should say I shall, we shall, but you/he/she/they will; conversely, for emphasis, willfulness, or insistence, one should say I/we will, but you/he/she/they shall".
Fowler wrote in his book The King's English, regarding the rules for using shall vs. will, the comment "the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to southern Englishmen... is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly acquire it". The Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, OUP, 2002, says of the rule for the use of shall and will: "it is unlikely that this rule has ever had any consistent basis of authority in actual usage, and many examples of English in print disregard it".
Nonetheless, even among speakers who do not follow the rule about using shall as the unmarked form in the first person, there is still a tendency to use shall and will to express different shades of meaning. Thus shall is used with the meaning of obligation, and will with the meaning of desire or intention.
An illustration of the supposed contrast between shall and will appeared in the 19th century, and has been repeated in the 20th century and in the 21st:
An example of this distinction in writing occurs in Henry James' 1893 short story The Middle Years:
A more popular illustration of the use of "shall" with the second person to express determination occurs in the oft-quoted words the fairy godmother traditionally says to Cinderella in British versions of the well-known fairy tale: "You shall go to the ball, Cinderella!"
The use of shall as the usual future marker in the first person nevertheless persists in some more formal or elevated registers of English. An example is provided by the famous speech of Winston Churchill: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.'"

Colored uses

Whether or not the above-mentioned prescriptive rule is adhered to, there are certain meanings in which either will or shall tends to be used rather than the other. Some of these have already been mentioned. However, there are also cases in which the meaning being expressed combines plain futurity with some additional implication; these can be referred to as "colored" uses of the future markers.
Thus shall may be used to imply a command, promise or threat made by the speaker. For example:
In the above sentences, shall might be replaced by will without change of intended meaning, although the form with will could also be interpreted as a plain statement about the expected future. The use of shall is often associated with formality and/or seriousness, in addition to the coloring of the meaning. For some specific cases of its formal use, see the sections below on and.
On the other hand, will can be used to emphasize the willingness, desire or intention of the speaker:
Most speakers have will as the future marker in any case, but when the meaning is as above, even those who follow or are influenced by the prescriptive rule would tend to use will.
The division of uses of will and shall is somewhat different in questions than in statements; see the following section for details.

Questions

In questions, the traditional prescriptive usage is that the auxiliary used should be the one expected in the answer. Hence in enquiring factually about the future, one could ask: "Shall you accompany me?". To use will instead would turn the question into a request. In practice, however, shall is almost never used in questions of this type. To mark a factual question as distinct from a request, the going-to future can be used: "Are you going to accompany me?".
The chief use of shall in questions is with a first person subject, to make offers and suggestions, or request suggestions or instructions:
This is common in the UK and other parts of the English-speaking world; it is also found in the United States, but there should is often a less marked alternative. Normally the use of will in such questions would change the meaning to a simple request for information: "Shall I play goalkeeper?" is an offer or suggestion, while "Will I play goalkeeper?" is just a question about the expected future situation.
The above meaning of shall is generally confined to direct questions with a first person subject. In the case of a reported question, shall is likely to be replaced by should or another modal verb such as might: "She is asking if she should open a window"; "He asked if they might dance."
The auxiliary will can therefore be used in questions either simply to enquire about what is expected to occur in the future, or to make a request:
and Justice Scalia in Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts describe that some legal drafting has sloppy use of the word “shall”.. Nevertheless, Garner and Scalia conclude that when the word "shall" can reasonably be understood as mandatory, it ought to be taken that way. In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court said ; Black's Law Dictionary 1375 .
Legislative acts and contracts sometimes use "shall" and "shall not" to express mandatory action and prohibition. However, it is sometimes used to mean "may" or "can". The most famous example of both of these uses of the word "shall" is the. Claims that "shall" is used to denote a fact, or is not used with the above different meanings, have caused discussions and have significant consequences for interpreting the text's intended meaning. Lawsuits over the word's meaning are also common.
In many requirement specifications, particularly involving software, the words shall and will have special meanings. Most requirement specifications use the word shall to denote something that is required, while reserving the will for simple statement about the future. However, some documents deviate from this convention and use the words shall, will, and should to denote the strength of the requirement. Some requirement specifications will define the terms at the beginning of the document.
Shall and will are distinguished by NASA and Wikiversity as follows:
On standards published by International Organization for Standardization, IEC, ASTM, IEEE, requirements with "shall" are the mandatory requirements, meaning, "must", or "have to". The IETF defines shall and must as synonymous terms denoting absolute requirements, and should as denoting a somewhat flexible requirement, in RFC documents.
On specifications and standards published by the United States Department of Defense, requirements with "shall" are the mandatory requirements. “Will” declares intent or simple futurity, and “should” and “may” express nonmandatory provisions.
Outside DoD, other parts of the U.S. government advise against using the word shall for three reasons: it lacks a single clear meaning, it causes litigation, and it is nearly absent from ordinary speech. The legal reference Words and Phrases dedicates 76 pages to summarizing hundreds of lawsuits that centered around the meaning of the word shall. When referencing a legal or technical requirement, Words and Phrases instead favors must while reserving should for recommendations.

''Should'' and ''would''

As noted above, should and would originated as the preterite forms of shall and will. In some of their uses they can still be identified as past forms of those verbs, but they have also developed some specific meanings of their own.

Independent uses

The main use of should in modern English is as a synonym of ought to, expressing quasi-obligation, appropriateness, or expectation. Examples:
Other specific uses of should involve the expression of irrealis mood:
The main use of would is in conditional clauses :
In this use, would is sometimes replaced by should when the subject is in the first person. This should is found in stock phrases such as "I should think" and "I should expect". However its use in more general cases is old-fashioned or highly formal, and can give rise to ambiguity with the more common use of should to mean ought to. This is illustrated by the following sentences:
In archaic usage would has been used to indicate present time desire. "Would that I were dead" means "I wish I were dead". "I would fain" means "I would gladly".
More details of the usage of should, would and other related auxiliaries can be found in the article on English modal verbs.

As past of ''shall'' and ''will''

When would and should function as past tenses of will and shall, their usage tends to correspond to that of the latter verbs.
Thus would and should can be used with "future-in-the-past" meaning, to express what was expected to happen, or what in fact did happen, after some past time of reference. The use of should here is much less common and is generally confined to the first person. Examples:
Would can also be used as the past equivalent of will in its other specific uses, such as in expressing habitual actions :
In particular, would and should are used as the past equivalents of will and shall in indirect speech reported in the past tense:
As with the conditional use referred to above, the use of should in such instances can lead to ambiguity; in the last example it is not clear whether the original statement was shall or should. Similarly "The archbishop said that we should all sin from time to time" is intended to report the pronouncement that "We shall all sin from time to time", but instead gives the highly misleading impression that the original word was should.