English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there any difference in the meaning when we use 'll or will?

For example,

  • I will go to university tomorrow.

  • I'll go to university tomorrow.

share|improve this question
"I will go to the university tomorrow." Hate to be the pedantic nut here, but don't forget the "the". – Jagd Aug 11 '10 at 23:41
@Jagd: I'd normally use "the university", but after your comment I'm actually not sure: why isn't "go to university" parallel to "go to school" and "go to college"? – ShreevatsaR Aug 12 '10 at 4:40
Agree - the sentence works perfectly well without "the". – Evan Aug 12 '10 at 18:26
You all are arguing about something that is done one way in British English ("go to university") and done another way in American English ("go to the university"). – Kosmonaut Aug 21 '10 at 12:06
As @Kosmonaut pointed out, while American English does allow 'go to school' or 'go to college', the similar phrase 'go to university' is not readily accepted. 'College' denotes the same schooling level as 'university' and is independent of 'high school' or 'primary school'. 'University' is used in reference to a specific university or to universities in general, but not in reference to the schooling level. – oosterwal Mar 7 '11 at 18:18
up vote 12 down vote accepted

No. The second form is a contraction of the first. Generally, contractions aren't appropriate for more formal writing (but as always, consider your target audience when writing).

share|improve this answer
I just know that contractions aren't appropriate for formal writing, I always use them when I email to my boss. Thanks for your nice answer. – Anonymous Aug 11 '10 at 16:36
That's not true. Contractions are used in all kinds of writing, no matter how formal. – Alan Hogue Aug 11 '10 at 17:09
@Alan Hogue: Well, robots do not use contractions. :-) So you can avoid contractions to give your language a quaint and unnatural (hence, less informal!) feel, in principle. – ShreevatsaR Aug 12 '10 at 4:46
Sure. If you want your prose to sound stilted and unnatural, by all means avoid contractions. :) – Alan Hogue Aug 13 '10 at 17:37

A major role of language is establishing a social context, and contractions are one of many usages to establish an informal context. Back when I was in university, informalisms were frowned upon, but the language is moving towards stuff you can say quickly, so maybe they are acceptable now.

There are plenty of markers of a formal context that sound unnatural to a (my) modern ear, e.g., "we are not amused" or "it is thought that". On the other hand, the third person plural and passive voice looks better in print, which is a reason for the divergence of the written and spoken language.

Incidentally, saying "go to university" to an American as opposed to "go to the university" would establish that you're English, and therefore culturally superior to an American.

share|improve this answer
+1 for the last paragraph! :-) – TrevorD May 30 '13 at 11:58

There are differences between 'll and will, and there are occasions in English when you cannot make contractions, but there's no great difference in the examples you've given. A very slight difference of mood, perhaps.

share|improve this answer

I'm not sure if there is any difference in meaning in the words themselves, since one is a contraction of the other. But they tend to be used slightly differently, with the contracted form more likely to appear in spoken English, for example. And changing the intonation and context might change the meaning completely.

share|improve this answer

There's no difference in the meaning as written. However, when speaking, you might use "I will" - with the emphasis on "will" - if there was any doubt as to whether the action were going to be carried out.

share|improve this answer

It may sound archaic nowadays, but I think that the correct expansion of "I'll" is (or rather was) "I shall". For first person, the auxiliary verb for indicating future is "shall" (it is a bit more complicated actually, see for example the Wikipedia article. If you write or speak the contraction, you can "leave this question open". This is one aspect.

The other is that writing contractions makes your prose more informal. For example, "ain't" is not really proper english; it is rather the attempt to bring a speaking accent to paper. The same holds in principle for "isn't" and "can't", but those have been established for a much longer time now.

share|improve this answer
You are implying that the contractions "isn't" and "can't" are not a part of standard English; they are. And the very first paragraph of the Wikipedia article you cited indicates that "will" or "shall" can be used interchangeably for the future. I think this answer is very misleading to non-native speakers. – Kosmonaut Aug 21 '10 at 12:11

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.