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

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!

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.

Fleeting said:

Is it wrong for textbooks to be so obtuse

Click to expand...

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.

Fleeting said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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:

Fleeting said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Fleeting said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

emsr2d2 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

5jj said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

5jj said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

5jj said:

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

Click to expand...

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)

Fleeting said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Fleeting said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Fleeting said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

@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.

Tarheel said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

jutfrank said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jutfrank said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Fleeting said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Fleeting said:

Or, more interestingly, how was it written?

Click to expand...

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

Fleeting said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Fleeting said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

jutfrank said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Fleeting said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Fleeting said:

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?

Click to expand...

Sure, let's do it!

Fleeting said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Fleeting said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Fleeting said:

(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.

Click to expand...

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'.

Fleeting said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jutfrank said:

Language isn't invented.

Click to expand...

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

jutfrank said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

jutfrank said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Fleeting said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Fleeting said:

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?

Click to expand...

What is it that you want to know?

jutfrank said:

What is it that you want to know?

Click to expand...

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.

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