The approach to teaching English - take, for example, get

[Fleeting]

Good day to you all.
New member here. I've started to learn a new language this year and this made me remember learning English (second language for me). There are plenty of times when I've been told 'They say it that way, MEMORIZE'. When I later taught English, I always tried to answer all questions with a possible explanation. I'm looking for a few opinions on something and, as always, it's hard to get the opinions of smart people. Normally, these kinds of forums are dead, but I despise Facebook and I don't know where I can get some answers. Maybe this is the right place.

Take, for example, the verb get. You're being told it can mean obtaining something (getting something), pointing to a change in weather or light conditions, a change in status (getting married), then you're given examples and only over the years you learn to use it fully. Why not come up right away and say that it is less of a verb and more of a descriptive particle used to specify that a transformation has occurred. All possible meanings of (get+word) can be explained thus; it is describing, not acting. You get angry whereas you were emotion-free before, you get rich whereas you were poor before, you get cold or it got cold when you were warm and so on. Not only there has been a transformation, but the first state and the second one are often at odds.

Get down! Get wrecked! Get a grip! Get going! I think all these meaning can be described with a general rule, but when I look into English textbooks, there's this fragmentation in explanations which makes it difficult to teach and understand grammar. If you take the auxiliary verbs, the same thing. You are led to believe that putting together two verbs is natural, but how can that be? In effect, when two verbs are together it's not that one verb is supporting (as auxiliary) the other, it's that the middle man has been cut. So if you want to teach the future tense, it's not that you add will to a verb, but you are in effect saying you have the will to do something (who can know what the future holds?), cut short to (will+verb). You need to explain it this way because it greatly helps out explaining the more difficult constructions, such as would have been doing.

I like to deconstruct sentences and words because it becomes easy to understand grammar this way. Otherwise, you're just stuck with memorizing things that don't make sense. What is present continuous about? A continuous action, a progressive action, what kind of an action? When? Deconstruct, put the preposition in its place and it becomes obvious. Or you just talk about sticking a tail - ing - to a verb and a non-native speaker confuses its usage for a long time.

That's what people do. In taking the short and fast approach, which requires no explanation, you end up having to explain many times over the same thing. That drives me crazy, but it sure as hell increases the hours taught (and paid, supposedly). I feel like the students are prey here, but... after all, each profession has its ways to increases revenue. Is it wrong for textbooks to be so obtuse, is there a need for a more flexible and intuitive approach to teaching languages, English included? That's really my question, as I have spent my time believing there is a need for that, but maybe I've been too enthusiastic all this time. Being young is painful, so I welcome standing corrected.

If you made it 'till the end of this thread, you certainly deserve a prize. Talk is cheap, they say, but I couldn't make it shorter. Have a good one!

 

[jutfrank]

Hi, Fleeting

I read your post with interest. It sounds as if you've had some poor instruction. I'd be very happy to pick up on any general or specific points about the verb 'get', about auxiliary verbs, the present continuous, or anything else for that matter, and perhaps try and really get to the heart of what they mean and how they're used.

Is it wrong for textbooks to be so obtuse

May I ask which textbooks you have in mind? Do you think you may be generalising a bit too much? There is a great variety of books out there, now more than ever.

is there a need for a more flexible and intuitive approach to teaching languages

I certainly agree with you that a flexibility of method and approach is supremely important, and that the right approach to take is very much led by intuition, yes.

 

[Fleeting]

Hello, nice to hear from you. Here's another long post, because I'm (a) troubled (one).
As for the poor instruction part, what can I say...for one thing, the leadership of any country (in Europe, Asia etc) cares little if millions of its citizens speak English as a second language or not. It is, after all, a second(ary) language. It may be taught in all schools of the country, for one reason or another, yet the number of fluent students in that language will be small. I've mentioned the first reason - there's no need for good instruction, this is not Singapore. You risk English becoming the spoken language of your country. Then, there's the part of finding good teachers - difficult. Then there's the idea that these students have years of study ahead (I had English as a discipline for 7 years), so why make it fast. Lastly, you've got textbooks which are designed for use in a lot of different countries. The more mechanical approach to learning was found to be the best in light of all the reasons above. So, did I have poor instruction or not? You bet.

Then again, this was public education. I learned actual English on the internet. Back in school, we had British textbooks, ordered from UK. They had a certain style, but it's hard for me to say they make it easy to get English. Ultimately, they look obtuse. Now, if I have to teach someone English, for exercises I will go to those textbooks. I may even 'copy' the lesson plan from the textbook itself. (Those are Macmillan and Longman, but for the most part I learned from (and used) Cambridge.) It's very easy to just parrot what the book says, because you don't have to think about it and try to actually explain.

Then, you have the more interesting books. For example, I read one by Michael Swan where it compares the English spoken in various countries, in both grammar and vocabulary. Same author wrote one on just grammar, and it looked very much like any other book on the subject. It looks like it's just easier to have a programme and I believe most grammar books offer that kind of automation. For years, I've been angry about it. Then you get to teaching the language and...well, it's certainly easier to teach it with the damned books. So what if students can't speak English even after 8 years of study in school? School is there mostly to keep them off the streets so that their parents can work and pay taxes. The textbooks themselves are obtuse because they reflect a compromise - one in which no side fully gets what they want. Isn't this...fairness? Let private teachers be flexible and knowledgeable - that's why you pay them better. etc. Sometimes I wonder if this is cynicism or just an acceptance of things as they are.

I think you're right - I just had it rough. Public schooling was extremely annoying, with its automated ways. That's just how things work there, I guess. But there's also a limit to flexibility, as well - I think it's hard for any textbook to explain the continuous tenses by saying that the construct is in(prep.)+verb(inf.form), but with the preposition at the end, stopped by a hard consonant. You'd then be forced to examine the German part of the English grammar and make the connection with Asia, and ultimately there's little interest in that. All sorts of things don't happen because they're not needed.

(It looks like I can adjust the font size - that's useful.) So, what can I do around here? Anything of use to someone?

 

[5jj]

Welcome to the forum. Fleeting.

Did you come here just to vent your frustrations, or did you want to discuss certain points? if the latter, then I suggest that you pick one point that irks you, and say why. If you narrow down your targets, it will become easier to hold a calm discussion. I will just pick on one point you made:

I think it's hard for any textbook to explain the continuous tenses by saying that the construct is in(prep.)+verb(inf.form), but with the preposition at the end, stopped by a hard consonant.

Can you name one textbook (title and author) that makes that claim?

 

[emsr2d2]

(It looks like I can adjust the font size - that's useful.)

You can, though that doesn't necessarily mean you should. I was about to hit the Edit button and put your entire post back into the default font size when I saw your last line. Are you posting in a large font due to a vision impairment? If so, then of course we can accommodate that. If not, please stick to the standard font size. It takes up much less space on the screen.

 

[Fleeting]

Are you posting in a large font due to a vision impairment?

I use a laptop normally. Plus, I wear glasses so yes, it's much easier to have a larger font to read. The more text you have to read, the better it is to have it bigger, or so I think.

Did you come here just to vent your frustrations, or did you want to discuss certain points?

My question was in the first post, and I guess I answered it myself after seen jusfrank's reply. He hit the nail on the head. I have no more frustrations, at least in that regard.

If you narrow down your targets, it will become easier to hold a calm discussion. I will just pick on one point you made

I guess I gave the wrong impression there. It's not like if I talk about being angry in the past, or say that textbooks are of a certain quality, I am doing it with a lot of emotion now. I am not going to fight anyone unless there's lots and lots to gain. Otherwise, it's not worth my fleeting time on the planet.

Can you name one textbook (title and author) that makes that claim?

I can't, because there's none claiming it, to my knowledge. I say it, and it made me wonder why there are no other people saying it. Is it because agreeing to it opens up a whole new discussion about English and its origins? Is it because the arguments can be dismissed as conjecture? Is it because while it can make things easier to understand, the construction won't actually change, this is about a linguistic artifact that resisted Latinization? Maybe it's all of the above. This is what I meant about having a more flexible and intuitive approach - not being stuck to official grammar books, because they might tend to obscure things. They do it because situations change.
But do we need to know that the -ing tail is nothing but the preposition in, stopped with a hard consonant? (I can explain this, it's no biggie, I'm not bragging and not intending to revolutionize anything, because: ) No, not really. It can't change anything, anyway.
(edited because an emoticon arose when I didn't call for it)

 

[jutfrank]

I think it's hard for any textbook to explain the continuous tenses by saying that the construct is in(prep.)+verb(inf.form), but with the preposition at the end, stopped by a hard consonant. You'd then be forced to examine the German part of the English grammar and make the connection with Asia

I'm curious to know what you mean because with all due respect I can barely make head nor tail of what you're saying here.

But do we need to know that the -ing tail is nothing but the preposition in, stopped with a hard consonant?

Actually, the modern English present participle suffix -ing unsurprisingly derives from the Old English -ende, which can in turn be traced thousands of years right back past its Proto-Germanic roots to Proto-Indo-European. Its contemporary Germanic cousins still bear something of a family resemblance. In modern German, for example, the equivalent suffix is -end. It has nothing to do with the preposition 'in', which has a completely different function and origin.

ing | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

www.etymonline.com

 

[emsr2d2]

Plus, I wear glasses so yes, it's much easier to have a larger font to read. The more text you have to read, the better it is to have it bigger, or so I think.

I also wear glasses and the default font size is sufficient (for me). We try not to have a lot of text to read in threads. The longer the post, the less likely it is that people will read it. If you take some time to read through some of the threads, particularly in Ask A Teacher, you'll see that we encourage users to be brief and to the point.

 

[Tarheel]

@Fleeting You don't have to post every thought that comes to mind.

The trouble with your posts is that if you read a little bit of one you discover that there is more and more and more and more.

There is no danger that English is going to become the main language spoken in Romania.

 

[Fleeting]

There is no danger that English is going to become the main language spoken in Romania.

I don't see it happening either. The thing is, all you need is military bases (occupation or defense pact) over sufficient generations and language does change.

Actually, the modern English present participle suffix -ing unsurprisingly derives from the Old English -ende, (...) In modern German, for example, the equivalent suffix is -end. It has nothing to do with the preposition 'in', which has a completely different function and origin.

This ende, what does it mean? How was it used? Or, more interestingly, how was it written? Because you can pronounce i and write it as e. That makes ende actually be inde, or even indы (with e standing for a sound English doesn't have, close to i). The Russians do stop their words with d or t, and if the original -ing was -ind, it doesn't change the way it works. Frankly, when linguists talk about certain particles as being prefixes or suffixes with no original meaning of their own, I stop listening. Tell me how it works and how it came to be, please.

I'm curious to know what you mean because with all due respect I can barely make head nor tail of what you're saying here.

I'm saying the German language (and the English one, having inherited its grammar) has plenty of linguistic artifacts that show its closeness to other Asian languages, despite the fact that over centuries there has been great adaptation to European linguistic norms. There has been a great desire for Germanic peoples to proclaim their Europe-ism and 'forget' where they come from. A similar thing happened with the Russians, who took upon themselves the Greek alphabet and grammar in the first stages, and later on (primarily) French customs. Same happened to the Hungarians, who decided they were good Catholics, because why not, they arrived in Europe and planned to stay. Same with many others.
It's really a political decision at the level of communities and it works at the individual level, too. You try to hide your origins and adopt as much of the customs of the wealthy people in whose company you are now. So, yes, you might peer into history and see that your language worked quite differently a long time ago, but that was then and now you're here. Why bother, cui bono?

 

[jutfrank]

This ende, what does it mean? How was it used?

It's a verb suffix, used to give a sense that an action is progressive.

Or, more interestingly, how was it written?

We use the largely the same alphabet nowadays, so it was written in the same way in Old English.

Frankly, when linguists talk about certain particles as being prefixes or suffixes with no original meaning of their own, I stop listening. Tell me how it works and how it came to be, please.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

I'm saying the German language (and the English one, having inherited its grammar) has plenty of linguistic artifacts that show its closeness to other Asian languages

Both modern German and modern English are in the same immediate family, which we call West Germanic, which itself is a branch of a wider Germanic family group. This group itself is part of an even wider family called Indo-European—a superfamily that includes lots of Asian languages as well as other European languages. In French, the suffix is -ent and in Spanish, it's -endo. I don't know enough about Asian languages to say any more.

 

[Fleeting]

It's a verb suffix, used to give a sense that an action is progressive.

Ok, then, let's talk a bit about suffixes. What is a suffix (or prefix, for that matter)? Is it just a bunch of letters? Is it a syllable without any prior meaning? If I decide to invent the continuous tense today and decide that we'll add 'vol' to a verb from now on, will you agree to it? Or if I decide to add 'vol' before the verb (inf.), will that be acceptable? My point is that yes, some choices are purely arbitrary, but there are still some rules that are respected when you invent something. At the very least, you start from somewhere.

In word formation, you put together words with individual meaning. Isn't a suffix or a prefix an actual word with meaning that is added to another word in order to add that meaning to it? (For example, concur or disagree.) If you agree, then you must tell me what this 'suffix ' ind/ing meant before it was used as a suffix. We should get at the heart of the matter and see how things came to be, else we'll just explain everything with 'it's how they do/say it' or 'it gives the sense of'. This is exactly what textbooks do in the absence of an explanation.

 

[jutfrank]

Ok, then, let's talk a bit about suffixes. What is a suffix (or prefix, for that matter)? Is it just a bunch of letters? Is it a syllable without any prior meaning?

It's a 'morpheme', which is the smallest linguistic unit of meaning. It's meaning reduced as far as possible, so in a sense you could say it's where meaning begins.

If I decide to invent the continuous tense today and decide that we'll add 'vol' to a verb from now on, will you agree to it?

Sure, let's do it!

Or if I decide to add 'vol' before the verb (inf.), will that be acceptable? My point is that yes, some choices are purely arbitrary, but there are still some rules that are respected when you invent something. At the very least, you start from somewhere.

Language isn't invented. There are no choices made. It's an organic thing that evolves like any other biological organ.

In word formation, you put together words with individual meaning. Isn't a suffix or a prefix an actual word with meaning that is added to another word in order to add that meaning to it?

It's the morphemes that have the basic meaning, and then those morphemes combine to form words, and those words combine to form phrases, those phrases combine to form sentences, and so on, up through higher and higher levels.

(For example, concur or disagree.) If you agree, then you must tell me what this 'suffix ' ind/ing meant before it was used as a suffix.

There was never a time when it meant anything alone. There are two kinds of morpheme. Affixes are called 'bound' morphemes because they can't exist independently of other morphemes. Morphemes that can exist alone are called 'free'.

We should get at the heart of the matter and see how things came to be, else we'll just explain everything with 'it's how they do/say it' or 'it gives the sense of'. This is exactly what textbooks do in the absence of an explanation.

I'm no expert in historical linguistics or etymology but if you have any specific questions, I can probably find the answers easily enough. You probably do understand though that when you're going back to a time before writing, it's impossible to get any data at all, since language doesn't leave physical evidence. The only way to do any research is to compare recorded languages, see what they have in common, and deduce backwards from there.

 

[Fleeting]

Language isn't invented.

Yes, I should have written 'come up with'.

There was never a time when it meant anything alone. There are two kinds of morpheme. Affixes are called 'bound' morphemes because they can't exist independently of other morphemes.

Here's the point of contention, then. Except for vowels, it's hard for me to accept that there are syllables with no meaning, or bound affixes. What I mean by that is, maybe today they mean nothing, but once upon a time, they must have meant something.

I'm no expert in historical linguistics or etymology but if you have any specific questions, I can probably find the answers easily enough.

What sites would one frequent to get information on language and such? I've sometimes looked up the etymology of some words, but there are quite a lot of sites out there. What would be some of the better ones?

 

[jutfrank]

Except for vowels, it's hard for me to accept that there are syllables with no meaning, or bound affixes.

When you say 'syllables', you mean 'morphemes' (syllables are a very different thing, relating to pronunciation, not meaning). To a linguist, morphemes do have meaning. If one is bound, it means it can't exist alone in language use—it has to be attached to another morpheme. All morphemes, including -ing, have meaning. The suffix -ing is bound in the sense that it has to be a part of a longer word.

Let me attempt to explain:

go
going

These are two different words, with two different meanings. The first consists of one independent morpheme (go) and the second consists of two morphemes (go + -ing), the former independent and the latter dependent.

Now look at the two parts:

go
-ing

The first morpheme (go) counts as a word, but the second (-ing) is bound, doesn't therefore count as a word, and so cannot exist alone in real language. Now, since it doesn't have independent existence in real language, it can't have meaning because things that don't exist don't mean anything, but when it is affixed to another morpheme, it brings meaning where there was none before. That's why 'go' and 'going' are two different words with two different meanings.

However, linguists, who are scientists, like to study abstractions, so the suffix -ing, which cannot exist in isolation in real language use does exist as an item of study. When I say that it has meaning, I'm talking about the meaning that it would bring if it were part of an actual word.

Do you follow this?

What sites would one frequent to get information on language and such? I've sometimes looked up the etymology of some words, but there are quite a lot of sites out there. What would be some of the better ones?

What is it that you want to know?

 

[Fleeting]

What is it that you want to know?

Mostly, where you get the theory you wrote above.

You keep saying that prefixes and suffixes cannot exist in isolation in the real language, and I keep saying they once were actual words, with full meaning. Why would that matter? Well, because in looking at their former meaning, we can decipher how a 'contemporary' word was formed, from a logical point of view.

Take the prefix 'con'/'co' - it is the (Latin) equivalent of 'with' in English. If you co-laborate, you work together. Literally. If it is contemporary, it is with the times. Why would you deny the simplicity of explaining words by explaining their constituent parts? It is particularly useful when you have to deal with more difficult ones.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, I sense that this is no longer a productive discussion, so never mind.