Best way to teach expressions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chancesz

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
South Africa
Current Location
South Africa
Hi

What is the best way to teach pre-intermediate students expressions such as

• I’ve got a cough
• I’ve got a headache
• I feel nauseous


and how would I emphasise the correct use of form and pronunciation?

I'm a new English teacher and would appreciate any help.

Thank you.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I am not a teacher; I simply couldn't help but poke around. I never did like the expression, "I've got this or that" unless "got" means "received." In your examples, "got" doesn't need a helping verb.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I am not a teacher; I simply couldn't help but poke around. I never did like the expression, "I've got this or that" unless "got" means "received." In your examples, "got" doesn't need a helping verb.
I don't understand what point you are making.

All three of those sentences are natural in British English.
I've got is a prefectly acceptable alternative to 'I have' in all but very formal English.
Omitting the auxiliary HAVE in the first two changes the tense.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I don't understand what point you are making.

All three of those sentences are natural in British English.
I've got is a prefectly acceptable alternative to 'I have' in all but very formal English.
Omitting the auxiliary HAVE in the first two changes the tense.

All three are perfectly natural in American English as well. The problem is that in America, people don't realize that it is improper grammar.
I've got may be perfectly acceptable, but that is a discussion of standards. Standard English does not refer to proper grammar; they are separate accounts.
Omitting the auxiliary HAVE in the first two changes the tense, but that is only evasive action. I'm sure you know that my suggestion was to omit GOT, leaving the sentence, "I have a headache."
 

Barb_D

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
No, that wasn't clear to me at all. When you said that the helping verb for "got" could be omitted I read that as your recommending "I got a headache."

And I completely disagree that "I've got" is improper grammar.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
No, that wasn't clear to me at all. When you said that the helping verb for "got" could be omitted I read that as your recommending "I got a headache."

And I completely disagree that "I've got" is improper grammar.

OK Barb. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear to you. Regardless, there are only a couple ways to take my comment. You either omit "have" or "got" and the results are obvious.

You disagree that it is improper grammar? Well, I may be wrong. May I ask then, in the sentence, "I've got a headache," what does "got" mean?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
OK Barb. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear to you. Regardless, there are only a couple ways to take my comment. You either omit "have" or "got" and the results are obvious.

You disagree that it is improper grammar? Well, I may be wrong. May I ask then, in the sentence, "I've got a headache," what does "got" mean?
'Got', on its own, means nothing in 'have got'. 'Have got' has the same meaning as 'have'. The form with 'got' was regarded as informal and substandard when I was at school fifty plus years ago. There are still people, including me, who do not use 'have got' except in very informal conversation, but most people in Britain regard it as acceptable.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
'Got', on its own, means nothing in 'have got'. 'Have got' has the same meaning as 'have'. The form with 'got' was regarded as informal and substandard when I was at school fifty plus years ago. There are still people, including me, who do not use 'have got' except in very informal conversation, but most people in Britain regard it as acceptable.

First, I need to say that I wasn't just unclear initially; I misstated my point. Anyway, "have got" is not a single word, nor is it a compound word. This poses a grammatical problem in the sentence "I've got a headache."

In defending such constructions, all you are really saying is that once improper grammar is used for 22.4 years, or some other random number, or, after a reputable writer, or 37 reputable writers, or some other random number, makes a given error, it is no longer an error.

It's like saying, "There's a couple people I want you to meet." If teachers want to teach that as acceptable, I'm just glad I'm out of school. It's what I call Ivoronics. That's Ebonics for white people. The only difference is that when white people make an error for an extended period of time, we call it acceptable. When black people use improper grammar, you label it Ebonics, or street.

The question remains, is it grammatical. Is it something we would find in a text book. I'll get on the top of a building and scream with a megaphone that it is "OK" to say whatever you want. Can you identify things in terms of what is grammatical?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
First, I need to say that I wasn't just unclear initially; I misstated my point. Anyway, "have got" is not a single word, nor is it a compound word. This poses a grammatical problem in the sentence "I've got a headache."
I don't see why. Nowadays we consider phrasal verbs as single sense units, and have to, ought to, used to, BE going to. BE about to, etc, are usefully considered as single sense units. It's the same with HAVE got.
In defending such constructions, all you are really saying is that once improper grammar is used for 22.4 years, or some other random number, or, after a reputable writer, or 37 reputable writers, or some other random number, makes a given error, it is no longer an error.
Yes. What is 'proper' or 'improper' is sometimes so only because certain people with sufficient influence have managed to make it so. The progressive verb forms have not always been acceptable English, but they are now an inegral part of our tense system. 'Hopefully', once considered a barbarism is now part of the language. Many of the 'improper' forms were actually never improper for the majority of native speakers. They were merely labelled so by certain writers who managed to impose their own prejuduces on 'good English' for a time. Examples include the split infinitive, sentence-final prepositions and conjunctions at the beginning of sentences.
It's like saying, "There's a couple people I want you to meet."
For me, only 'a couple of' is natural, but that's because I am a British sexuagenarian. If that is now acceptable, especially in AmE, then so be it.
If teachers want to teach that as acceptable, I'm just glad I'm out of school. It's what I call Ivoronics. That's Ebonics for white people. The only difference is that when white people make an error for an extended period of time, we call it acceptable. When black people use improper grammar, you label it Ebonics, or street.
At present, there are not enough speakers of such varieties of English using them in mainstream writing, film or television for the 'errors' to be universally accepted. That may change. Some of the words and expressions of the (mainly black) jazz circles of the early part of the last century (including, perhaps 'jazz' itself) have become so fully accepted that people are unaware now that they weee once 'barbarous' and/or incomprehensible.
The question remains, is it grammatical. Is it something we would find in a text book. I'll get on the top of a building and scream with a megaphone that it is "OK" to say whatever you want. Can you identify things in terms of what is grammatical?
Well, 'HAVE got' is presented in many BrE ELT course books and noted in all serious grammars. Some writers still label it as 'informal', but that wll no doubt pass. At present, 'I has got' and 'he have got' are ungrammatical. Nobody can say for certain that this will always be so.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I don't see why. Nowadays we consider phrasal verbs as single sense units, and have to, ought to, used to, BE going to. BE about to, etc, are usefully considered as single sense units. It's the same with HAVE got.

"A single sense unit." Is that the way it's worded in your grammar? The dictionary? I've also heard the emphasis argument. It seems like people grasp at reasons to make errors "OK." So many times, the real culprit is the contraction. It disguises the error. People don't want to have to think about what they are saying, so they say, let's just use the living language rationale to make this "OK." Fine. You can say, and teach, "I've got a headache." My kids will learn "I have a headache." Your kids can say, "I've got a cold."

Paul Brians says it like this:

"(People often say) 'You’ve got mail' should be 'you have mail.'

The “have” contracted in phrases like this is merely an auxiliary verb indicating the present perfect tense, not an expression of possession. It is not a redundancy. Compare: “You’ve sent the mail. ”

That’s just great. Compare: “You’ve eaten the mail.” This does not address people’s problem with the statement “You’ve got mail.” Three out of four sticklers agree that most of the time, people say things like, “I’ve got to go now” or “You’ve got beautiful eyes.” In these examples, “got” means “have” and we do indeed see a redundancy, even though:

get (gt)
v. got, (gt) got·ten, (gtn) or got get·ting, gets
v. tr.
16.

  1. To have current possession of. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: We've got plenty of cash.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

This definition lends credence to Paul Brian’s point, implying that it is acceptable to use got in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present, and states in no uncertain terms that “got” used as such means “have,” and that “have” needs the helping verb “have.” Let’s see how that would look:
“We’ve have plenty of cash.”
OK, I say that’s wrongendofstory-now according to Paul Brian’s logic, “have” is simply an auxiliary verb indicating the present perfect tense, not an expression of possession. The dictionary definition says that in this type of sentence, “got” does mean “to have current possession.” Apparently, the dictionary and Paul Brians disagree. Funny—in this case, I find neither source creditworthy.
Now look at definition one, and pay attention to the word receive, for it is the definition that allows the AOL catch-phrase to be grammatically correct:
1.

  1. To come into possession or use of; receive: got a cat for her birthday.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Paul should have used definition 1 of “get” to prove the sentence grammatically correct; instead he uses definition 16, and then contradicts appropriate use of that definition.


Yes. What is 'proper' or 'improper' is sometimes so only because certain people with sufficient influence have managed to make it so.

Changing the meaning of a word is one thing. Changing grammatical rules is something else entirely.

The progressive verb forms have not always been acceptable English, but they are now an inegral part of our tense system.

I see no problem with adding a word or verb form to the language. This adds functionality.

Many of the 'improper' forms were actually never improper for the majority of native speakers. They were merely labelled so by certain writers who managed to impose their own prejuduces on 'good English' for a time. Examples include the split infinitive, sentence-final prepositions and conjunctions at the beginning of sentences.

The split infinitive and sentence-final prepositions are not in the same league as the conjunction at the beginning of a sentence. If you want to continue a sentence so badly that you begin a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, why not just use a comma or semicolon as appropriate to show a pause, or a sharper division between clauses? Beginning a sentence with "but" does not achieve anything that can not be achieved by a semicolon except to trick the reader into thinking a sentence is finish when it really isn't.

Well, 'HAVE got' is presented in many BrE ELT course books and noted in all serious grammars.

"Presented"? Is that presented as grammatically correct, or presented (and noted) as usage, but not proper grammar? I would love to know the source and a quote.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
"A single sense unit." Is that the way it's worded in your grammar? The dictionary?
Possibly. I just used what I thought was an appropriate expression.
I've also heard the emphasis argument.
Who has said anything about the 'emphasis argument'?
It seems like people grasp at reasons to make errors "OK."
It's rather that we don't consider them to be errors.
Fine. You can say, and teach, "I've got a headache." My kids will learn "I have a headache."
As it happens, I say "I have a headache" myself, but I don't believe in teaching people that the acceptable "I have got/I've got" is wrong.
The “have” contracted in phrases like this is merely an auxiliary verb indicating the present perfect tense, not an expression of possession. It is not a redundancy.
I don't think anyone has said that it's a redundancy. In some contexts the present perfect of GET has come to have the same meaning as the present simple of HAVE.



That's all I have time for at present.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
What is the best way to teach pre-intermediate students expressions such as

• I’ve got a cough....• I’ve got a headache....• I feel nauseous

and how would I emphasise the correct use of form and pronunciation?
Sorry, chancesz. This thread has gone right away from your original question. I am moving it to s fresh thread to give it a chance. Those who wish to respond to it should go here.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I see no problem with adding a word or verb form to the language. This adds functionality.
This does not apparently apply to have got.
"Presented"? Is that presented as grammatically correct, or presented (and noted) as usage, but not proper grammar? I would love to know the source and a quote.
There is also the informal HAVE got construction in BrE, which, although perfective in form is nonperfective in meaning, and is frequently preferred (esp in BrE) as an alternative to stative HAVE.

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartik, Jan (1985.131) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman

The idiom have got historically derives from a perfect construction. This is transparent in BeE, where got is the past participle of get. [...] Have gotis restricted to informal style, but is otherwise very common, especially in BrE.

Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K (2002.112) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: CUP
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Tuco
"A single sense unit." Is that the way it's worded in your grammar? The dictionary?
Possibly. I just used what I thought was an appropriate expression.

That's fine. I understand that we can't converse purely technically. My reason fro bringing up the point was that it sounded like, "That's the way people throw language around. It's just kind of--that sense, ya know?"...and to this I would say, "Yes, I do know. That is usage." I think we don't argue about the usage aspect of language.

Tuco: I've also heard the emphasis argument. 5jj: Who has said anything about the 'emphasis argument'?

Nobody said anything about it here. I said that because the usage argument seems so frivolous, I thought I'd throw out another frivolous argument while we were at it. I feel as though people throw mud at a wall and see what sticks.

Tuco: It seems like people grasp at reasons to make errors "OK." 5jj: It's rather that we don't consider them to be errors.
So often I hear arguments pointing to usage that I get frustrated. Below...or above--somewhere you do point to British grammars, so we've moved on to that at least. Let's see where that goes.

As it happens, I say "I have a headache" myself, but I don't believe in teaching people that the acceptable "I have got/I've got" is wrong.

Acceptable. This moves us away from the term standard, which is confusing enough.

USAGE NOTE People who invoke the term Standard English rarely make clear what they have in mind by it, and tend to slur over the inconvenient ambiguities that are inherent in the term. Sometimes it is used to denote the variety of English prescribed by traditional prescriptive norms, and in this sense it includes rules and usages that many educated speakers don't systematically conform to in their speech or writing, such as the rules for use of who and whom. In recent years, however, the term has more often been used to distinguish the speech and writing of middle-class educated speakers from the speech of other groups and classes, which are termed nonstandard. This is the sense in which the word is used in the usage labels in this dictionary.

Standard English. Answers.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Standard English: Definition from Answers.com, accessed February 05, 2006.

I don't want to open myself up on the matter of terminology. I know that I don't have the words to identify much in the realm of grammar, but when it comes to grammar, even Standard English is not necessarily used the same way by everyone. The differences are not the same as, say, red vs. pink, but rather black vs. white--that is, sometimes it means prescription, sometimes formal...or informal...usage. That's just not right.

My point is, "acceptable is extremely vague, and when people ask specific questions about correctness, it is helpful to be specific and state whether something is acceptable in usage, or according to rules. I see the problem though, as you don't seem to think that grammar consists of rules...excepting perhaps that there are no rules?

I don't think anyone has said that it's a redundancy. In some contexts the present perfect of GET has come to have the same meaning as the present simple of HAVE.

Paul Brians says it like this:

"(People often say) 'You’ve got mail' should be 'you have mail.'

The “have” contracted in phrases like this is merely an auxiliary verb indicating the present perfect tense, not an expression of possession. It is not a redundancy. Compare: “You’ve sent the mail. ”

In some contexts the present perfect of GET has come to have the same meaning as the present simple of HAVE.
To have current possession of. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: We've got plenty of cash.

Those last two were found in an earlier post as well. This sounds like incest, not productivity. It's like the entry word infer. Definition four in one dictionary is imply. That isn't productive. Let's just say that yin can mean yang, and vice versa, thereby adding flexibility and functionality. If you want to use a given tense, use it. If you want to create a new tense, create one. Add functionality...but don't use the wrong tense and confuse it with the right one. That doesn't add anything, and it is an error in usage.

I address this in my manuscript in the context of coining a phrase. When you coin a phrase, go ahead and dumb it down or others will do it for you. Go ahead. Don't make the distinction between productive changes and bastardizations. Help dumb down the language. We have plenty of people doing it here already. I just hope people are really good at limbo.

That's all I have time for at present.

Hopefully we have cut down on some of the points requiring attention here.
 
Last edited:

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
This does not apparently apply to have got.
It confuses the rules. Rules are entirely different from adding words or changing words as in functional shift.
We can say, "I have" and "I got." We can say "I have gotten." I believe that when you use the present perfect to mean the present, an error has been made according to prescription. As for description, well, just go outside and there you have it. Not much point in talking about that.

Now, if someone asks as a learner of English, I think it is important for the teacher to make the distinction between prescription and usage, but I know you don't want to do that.

Have gotis restricted to informal style

Thanks for the quote. Why do you feel Have got is restricted to informal style? If it is grammatically correct, wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable at all levels of style?
 

TomUK

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
German
Home Country
Germany
Current Location
UK
Not a teacher!

For me, only 'a couple of' is natural, but that's because I am a British sexuagenarian.

I am neither British nor a sexuawhatsit, but I also would consider 'a couple of people' to be natural, whereas with 'a couple people' I would feel something is missing.

I have tried to read all the posts in this thread. Now I've got a headache and I haven't got any aspirin. Thanks a lot.

TomUK
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I also would consider 'a couple of people' to be natural, whereas with 'a couple people' I would feel something is missing.
Well, tuco is not exactly consistent. S/he seems to be against ' a couple' without 'of' in post #8, but used it in post #6.

tuco: You said in another thread, "If you care to answer my question in that thread, I'll be happy to answer this question over there" The thread referred to being, I assume, this one, I will attempt to address the apparently unanswered question if you will re-pose it.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Well, tuco is not exactly consistent. S/he seems to be against ' a couple' without 'of' in post #8, but used it in post #6.

tuco: You said in another thread, "If you care to answer my question in that thread, I'll be happy to answer this question over there" The thread referred to being, I assume, this one, I will attempt to address the apparently unanswered question if you will re-pose it.

5jj, I'm a guy. :)
I looked in post 6 and 8 and did a CTRL + F for the text couple (and couple of). I couldn't find an instance of "couple of" except by another poster. Could you point out where I was inconsistent? Could you tell me why it would matter if I
were?

tuco: You said in another thread, "If you care to answer my question in that thread, I'll be happy to answer this question over there" The thread referred to being, I assume, this one, I will attempt to address the apparently unanswered question if you will re-pose it.

I believe you have addressed all concerns and we are moving on.
 

Tuco

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
It confuses the rules. Rules are entirely different from adding words or changing words as in functional shift.
We can say, "I have" and "I got." We can say "I have gotten." I believe that when you use the present perfect to mean the present, an error has been made according to prescription. As for description, well, just go outside and there you have it. Not much point in talking about that.

Now, if someone asks as a learner of English, I think it is important for the teacher to make the distinction between prescription and usage, but I know you don't want to do that.



Thanks for the quote. Why do you feel Have got is restricted to informal style? If it is grammatically correct, wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable at all levels of style?

Bump
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I looked in post 6 and 8 and did a CTRL + F for the text couple (and couple of). I couldn't find an instance of "couple of" except by another poster. Could you point out where I was inconsistent? Could you tell me why it would matter if I were?
In post #6 you wrote, “Regardless, there are only a couple ways to take my comment. You either omit "have" or "got" and the results are obvious”. (My underlining.)
In post #8 you wrote, “It's like saying, "There's a couple people I want you to meet." If teachers want to teach that as acceptable, I'm just glad I'm out of school”.

That’s fine by me, though it strikes me as a little strange that you should feel uncomfortable about a usage that appears in your own writing.
I believe you have addressed all concerns and we are moving on.
Great. Well, you said in the other thread that if I answered your questions you would address this:

"Tuco, you have still presented no hard evidence that have got is 'incorrect grammar'".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top