I often have students ask me about this 'difference.'
I have used inverted commas around the word 'difference,' in the first sentence to indicate that this difference is, at least in my view, largely theoretical rather than real.
By 'real,' what I mean is a real difference that is borne out by the way that native speakers use the language in an every day context.
Students that are interested in the theoretical differences can find some information on them here:
http://www.grammar.cl/Notes/Future_Will_vs_Going.htm
If you are studying for an exam such as IELTS, FCE or CAE you would do well to study these notes ( because you are liable to be penalized if you get this wrong).
But what if you're a person who needs to use English on a regular basis and you want to speak like a native speaker?
I would argue that, of all the different usages listed in this link, only one - the one labelled "offer," is a difference that actually exists in the way native speakers use their language on an every day basis. If you see a woman struggling with two pushchairs, you should certainly *not* say to her "Don't worry, I'm going to help you with those." A native speaker would always say "Don't worry, I will help you with those."
However, in every other instance listed here, I would argue that native speakers use 'will,' and 'going to,' interchangeably.
Of course, native speakers in most languages tend to make grammatical mistakes. Some of them are absolutely awful such as 'I could of,' instead of 'I could have.' But educated people do not make that kind of mistake. If one were to record the speech of university educated people on a daily basis in the UK, I'm convinced that, other than in respect of the 'offer,' no distinction would emerge between the use of 'will,' and 'going to,' amongst those speakers.
What do other native speakers think?
What do teachers of English think about this?
I would be especially interested to hear what non-natives think about this... you may have been struggling with this point and you may, therefore, have paid close attention to what we native speakers actually say in these situations... what differences have you noticed?
Andrew: you can't possibly have been referring to spoken English, because (as I pointed out) "ve" and "of" are pronounced exactly the same in spoken English.
Therefore, when somebody is speaking, you cannot possibly tell whether they are saying "could've" or "could of" unless you ask them to write it down.
They both sound the same.
It is only in written English that you can discern whether a native speaker has written "could of" or "could've".
It's the same with "your" versus "you're" etc.
In spoken English, there is no difference in the pronunciation of words like that, so it's only in written English that you can notice mistakes in the spelling of homophones.
Edit: Andrew, if you think that nobody writes "could of", you should check out the comments section of the Daily Mail, or any comments section of any random YouTube video. You will soon be tearing your hair out at the sheer number of "should of" and "could of" and "would of" comments that you will see!
You have said "nobody writes could of, but people do say it". I think you still don't get my point. It is not possible for you to know whether somebody is saying "could of". The word you are hearing might be "could of" (which would be incorrect) or they might be saying "could've" (which would be perfectly fine). "ve" and "of" sound identical, so it is not possible for you to be able to tell which word they are saying unless they write it down. I hope that makes sense. Not trying to start an argument here. We're both on the same page and clearly both agree that "could of" [sic] is incorrect! :)
"Going to..." is often a marker for near future, while "will" doesn't generally do this unless it's accompanied by a time specifying the near future. It's an open ended future, that doesn't necessarily imply immediacy. "Going to..." similar to "About to..." which is used - in some areas - in its place.
When someone says "I think it's going to rain." (also, "I think it's about to rain.") a native speaker knows that they mean "soon," because "going to" is a marker for near future when it stands in isolation like this. It's analogous to the Futur Proche in French. "Je pense qu'il va pleuvoir."
Using will in some statements, in isolation, can lead to ambiguity. People will ask "when" to repair this. When used for non-obvious near future, "will" is often tagged with extra information. ("We will get back to you soon.")
However, people are more apt to use "will" with distant, events with unspecified time. "One day I will go to Paris." French Futur Tense: "Un jour, j'irai à Paris."
"One day, I'm going to go to Paris." will be understood, but it sound odd to me. Most people will will automatically go to "will" for that.
You can force either to work in both situations by adding modifying information to them:
I think it will rain today.
I'm going to go to Paris within the next 20 years.
This is when they become hard for ESLs to distinguish. But when used in isolation, they clearly mark for different types of future.
I would use "will" in the pram situation as it is slightly less "pushy" than I am going to.
However, I would more likely ask rather than make a statement, so "would you like me to" is actually more likely
Andrew et al,
For the moment, I'll just add a brief perspective on "will" and "going to". While the use of either one is quite subjective and the difference is potentially quite small, one trend that I've noticed is that politicians consistently use "will" when they're on the campaign trail and shift to "going to" once they're in office.
It's more than coincidental since "will" expresses an offer as you suggest in the thread, but it also strongly points to a promise.
"Going to", on the other hand, expresses plan or intention or decision. Those are less definite and reflect how politicians see things once they get into office.
Sudeep:
Natalia and Andrew are right.
"I have got" is just a more colloquial way of saying "I have".
I apologise if I confused you by writing "I have got" instead of "I have," but that is how I would say it myself, as a native speaker.
It may look like the present perfect tense, but in this case it is actually the present simple tense masquerading as the present perfect.
In any case, even supposing it were the present perfect tense (which it isn't) in British English, we do not say "gotten" as the past participle of "get".
There is a difference between British English and American English in the case of the verb "to get".
British English: get, got, got. (Infinitive, past participle, past simple).
American English: get, gotten, got. (Infinitive, past participle, past simple).
Interestingly, this only applies to the verb "get" but does not apply to the verbs "forget" or "beget".
In both British English and American English, those two verbs follow the pattern "forget, forgotten, forgot" and "beget, begotten, begat".
There might be some more verbs which are formed from the root verb "get", but I can't think of any at the moment. Anyone?
