158 Francis G. H. Pang Such observations are sensible in terms of logic, and indeed general interpretation of futurity as a mental construct. Yet they are not especially helpful for analysis of grammatical categories, manifesting a confusion of what we think of as absolute time with the grammatical category of tense154. He champions an approach to the problem of the Future from “a strictly linguistic viewpoint”155. However, he did not elaborate how this strictly linguistic approach is used. It should also be noted that the scholars that he argues against are linguists themselves and the discussion of linguistics, as in many other social sciences, is inevitably connected with philosophical concepts. Finally, Evans argues that Porter’s view of non-temporal Future is theory-driven, i.e. all tense-forms are non-temporal so the Future cannot be an exception. However, it is an oversimplification of Porter’s argument. The fact that there exists usages of Future form in non-future context is overwhelming and begs for an explanation156. Porter’s explanation is thus driven not by his system but by the data. The fact that there are so many exceptions to the temporal interpretation shapes his hypothesis of a non-temporal Future. Abductive reasoning is once again at work here. Thus, to summarize the discussion on the nature of the Future: Model Tense Aspect Interpretive McKay Future [+intention] Porter None [+expectation] Fanning Future None [punctiliar/durative] Olsen Future None [±telic] Campbell Future Perfective [±ingressive] 4. Conclusion As demonstrated above, the debate over the aspect of the Future generally circles around three points: the role of Aktionsart, the neutrality of the method and the historical development of the form. Whereas the model of Olsen and Campbell sometimes conflates Aktionsart and 154 Evans, Verbal Syntax, 38. 155 Evans, Verbal Syntax, 38. 156 The claim that Campbell made, that Porter’s theory treat the Future tense as non- temporal “simply for the purpose of fitting a predetermined theory”, (emphasis mine) and thus methodologically flawed is similarly unwarranted. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 153, n.49.