Search results for 'tag:Verbs tag:Morphology' matching tags 'Verbs' and 'Morphology'

Re: Best ways to learn irregular verbs

CalifJim — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:41:18 GMT

I think language is better learned by real contact with real language than through a quasi-mathematical approach with drills. It seems to me that mistakes are normal in learning, and there is no need to stress students with artificial exercises to master. Personally, I never got a lot out of such drills when I learned foreign languages.

If the students are gradually brought into contact with the irregularities of language (whether verbs or other elements), I think they do just as well or better than if a whole batch of irregularities are dropped on them at once with the injunction to "Learn this!"

Ideally, an acquaintance with certain adjective forms in conversational settings (well done, thoughtful, lost dog, newly fallen snow, a poorly fed parakeet kept hidden in a stolen cage!), originally learned by rote, can set up the desired "ho-hum" reaction to past participles like done, thought, lost, etc. (I think that sometimes teachers are more panicked by irregularities than students, and teacher panic spreads to the students -- especially once the difficulties are officially recognized in the form of special drills! "Whoa! This is SO difficult we have to spend hours slaving away at it!" )

Other irregularities, preferably related by semantics rather than by grammar or morphology, can also be learned by rote at first: came and went, bought it, brought it home, wore it once, and took it back (or threw it out), had (s.o.) over - came over - drove over, sat down and stood up, sat down and shut up, stood up and spoke out, fell down and got (back) up, put it on and took it off, made a choice - chose, had a meeting - met, held a sale - sold, took the lead - led, took a drive - drove, got some sleep - slept, had a fight - fought, etc. There are any number of dialogs you can construct that emphasize the use of such forms, and any number of topics for free conversation which will naturally lead to the use of such forms.

Note that many irregular past participles occur after got. This might be a factor you can use to your advantage in presenting some of the irregular forms. got hurt, burnt, struck by lightening, stung by a bee, stuck in traffic, bitten by a dog, left behind, paid, ...

Students who "want to understand" irregular verbs probably just want to see them grouped in some logical way -- either because it helps them to memorize them that way, or purely out of intellectual curiosity. Just showing them the three basic groups is often enough: Those with t or d endings in both the past and the past participle; those with ng, nk, or g endings; those with -en past participles.

But I think what you really want is better exercises to drill these verbs, that is, exercises that more efficiently drum in the forms and consistently "reduce student error rates", and I'm afraid I can't help you with all that "learning technology" stuff. The ones you've found seem to do the job, and I'm not aware of any "magic bullet" that addresses that goal perfectly.

Differences between English and your native language

Cool Breeze — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 08:35:56 GMT

There are thousands of languages. It would be interesting to see examples of differences between English and your native language. I don't mean you should provide a complete list of them in one post, just some examples at a time. Your examples may be about vocabulary, morphology, grammar, syntax or anything really.

I'll begin by giving a couple of examples of how verbose English sometimes is compared with Finnish:

HÃ¤n maalasi talonsa. = He painted his house.

HÃ¤n maalautti talonsa. = He had his house painted.

HÃ¤n maalautteli taloaan. = He had his house painted frequently. (Finnish: 3 words, English: 6 words)

There is a verb for to paint: maalata;

to have [something] painted: maalauttaa

and to have [something] painted frequently: maalautella

and all of these behave grammatically like any other verb. In English one can manage with just one verb, to paint in all these situations.

The same is true about to fix, to have [something] fixed and to have [something] fixed frequently and so on.

Cheers

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

milky — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:26:34 GMT

<Mastering all the complexities and nuances of a verb is difficult in all languages. Complexities and nuances are not an exclusivity of English. What makes English easier than some other languages, in my opinion, is its simple morphology.>

I'd say "relatively" simple.

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:28:49 GMT

Milky wrote:
He has to go and

He must go.>

Well, I guess that would be part of the mastering part of the language - i.e. the complex part. It's easy for anyone to claim that English is not complex, or is much simpler than many other languages, if he/she avoids talking about mastering the language.

I am not avoiding talking about mastering English. I am just being pragmatic and concentrating on what I consider essential. I don't mind it at all if your ideas about the difficulty of English differ from mine and I fully understand that should is an important modal for some of your students. By all means, teach them what is important to them.

What surprises me is the fact that because the English modal auxiliaries have a number of rare or otherwise exceptional uses, they must be very difficult for nonnative learners of English. It never seems to cross these people's minds that modals or other verbs have similar uses in other languages as well. Such uses are by no means unique to English. In other words, similar difficulties exist in other languages.

It would come as a big surprise for a Swede if he were told that will never means to want. This is because the corresponding verb in Swedish is the most common word meaning to want. Its present tense is spelled vill. And as the German wollen is of the same etymological origin, Germans have no problems with associating volition or desire with will.

Mastering all the complexities and nuances of a verb is difficult in all languages. Complexities and nuances are not an exclusivity of English. What makes English easier than some other languages, in my opinion, is its simple morphology.

CB

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:24 GMT

Hi Forbes

Thank you for your long reply. I do appreciate it. I would just like to say that I my opinion is based on the knowledge I have of the Germanic and Romance languages and it is of course very subjective. I fully understand that not everyone agrees with me and what I consider easy may be difficult for some others as I have already said. However, I have given my honest opinion and I don't think you or anybody else would want me to lie on this forum? I'll add some comments.

I thought that might be what you were getting at.

I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language. I agree. I was talking about morphology only. To my mind I made no mistake. I do know what is difficult about English.

I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true:

1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions

There are only about 15 cases in Finnish - I don't actually remember the exact number and didn't bother to check, but we always
have a different form for the plural and that explains the 30. It is true that Finnish has fewer prepositions than English. In my opinion the number of changes made to words and the number of inflections cause far more difficulties for nonnative learners than the number of English prepositions, though..

2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases Correct.

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular Correct again. Someone has said that there are ten rules in English grammar and 10,000 exceptions and 10,000 rules in Finnish grammar and ten exceptions. That's not quite true, though.

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it That is a matter of opinion and dispute. Quite a few nonnatives have said it is very difficult. They say it is hopeless to try and master the grammar from books. There may or may not be some truth in this. The number of "rules" must seem endless to some and people say it's a better idea not to worry too much about all the inflections and changes in the middle of the words but just go where people talk and learn the grammatical complexities by ear.

I have to say that I have met one or two Finns and they do seem to relish the idea that Finnish is a "difficult" language. I have also met some "Swedish Finnish" (I am not sure what the correct term is) and they all tell me that they are bilingual in Swedish and Finnish. They will of course have been helped in acquiring Finnish because either they live in a bilingual community or started to learn the language at an early age (I am not sure how it works) so they would not have been prejudiced by any concept of "difficulty". I expect that your idea that Finnish is difficult is confirmed by the fact that you do not know many foreigners living in Finland who have mastered it. This will be because:

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult That is true about all languages.

2. Someone who is working full time will not be able to devote more than an hour or two a week to learning the language That is true about all languages.

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish There is a lot of truth in this. However, there are lots of people who have come to Finland for good and want to learn the language.

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off! I have spoken to Brits in Finland who say the opposite. They say they get encouraged in their efforts to speak Finnish. I don't think we are any better or worse than other people in this respect.

(I live in Spain and all the above applies to expats.)

You think that English is "simple". I venture to suggest that this is because you started to learn it at an early age and were introduced to it gradually so that you did not perceive its difficulties; you acquired your mastery over a long period. Also, I suspect that Finns are "subjected" to English in a way that the English are not subjected to foreign languages. A lot can be learned without realising it.

No. I have perceived its difficulties all right. They are the spelling and the idioms and the exceptions, for me anyway. The grammar, as I understand it, and structure are the easiest of the languages I am familiar with. Mind you, I don't pretend to be perfect in English. Actually, I don't think I deserve the icon, or whatever is the right word, that says I have a good grasp of the language. I would say I have a good grasp of the grammar but my vocabulary isn't at all on a par with native speakers. My knowledge of idioms and colloquialisms could also be much better.

Consider the following:

There is no single way of negating verbs in English. I do not eat, but I must not. I do not have any eggs, but I have not got any eggs.

There is no single way of forming questions. Do you come here a lot? but Can I go out?

True. And a third way: Who came? What happened?

It is not always easy to know when to use the continuous form of the verb. Try and explain why you can say Are you having cakes for tea? but cannot go into a shop and say Are you having cakes?

The meaning of prepositional verbs is not always transparent. John has got it in for me.

English is a highly analytic language and meaning is often derived from context:

A. You keep complaining. Have you got it in for me?

B. I asked you to bring in the shopping. Have you got it in for me?

These are just a tiny example of the complexities of English and they have nothing to do with inflectional morphology.

I am familiar with these things and I admit I make mistakes using expressions and tenses. However, I was referring to the fact that English words have only a handful of forms and the fewer inflections there are the easier it is to learn them. Using them correctly is indeed another thing, I agree with you there. Other languages have their "difficulties" too. I admit that English is difficult, at least for me, in this respect. No language is easy in every respect, or if there is one, then it is impossible to express nuances in that language.

As I said in my previous post, what is easy for some may be difficult for others. My views are based solely on my experience and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me.

Cheers

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Forbes — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 12:39:45 GMT

Hi Cool Breeze

I thought that might be what you were getting at.

I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language.

I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true:

1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions

2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult

2. Someone who is working full time will not be able to devote more than an hour or two a week to learning the language

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off!

(I live in Spain and all the above applies to expats.)

Consider the following:

There is no single way of negating verbs in English. I do not eat, but I must not. I do not have any eggs, but I have not got any eggs.

There is no single way of forming questions. Do you come here a lot? but Can I go out?

It is not always easy to know when to use the continuous form of the verb. Try and explain why you can say Are you having cakes for tea? but cannot go into a shop and say Are you having cakes?

The meaning of prepositional verbs is not always transparent. John has got it in for me.

English is a highly analytic language and meaning is often derived from context:

A. You keep complaining. Have you got it in for me?

B. I asked you to bring in the shopping. Have you got it in for me?

These are just a tiny example of the complexities of English and they have nothing to do with inflectional morphology.

Re: Morphology help! Urgent

Kimm — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:00:29 GMT

The problem with "accounting for the ungrammaticality" of a sentence is that its ungrammaticality lies in the structure that a person imposes on it, not in the string of words themselves. How the structure deviates depends not only on the "target", as it were, but also on what structure you imposed on the sentence.

I find of poetry in (a) unexpected because I read nothing that it could be an object of. Of poetry cannot be the object of boo because the writer, the subject of the passive, is already the object of the verb.

I am not convinced that (b) or (c) is ungrammatical. I can imagine contexts where both are meaningful. For (b), the analysis with pie charts may be being contrasted with analyses without pie charts. For (c), criticise can be used without an object, and what John did at the meeting may be being contrasted with what others did at the meeting. To justify calling (b) or (c) ungrammatical, you would need to say what structure you imposed on the sentence.

/km

Re: Morphology help! Urgent

CalifJim — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:31:26 GMT

a. I don't know what they're getting at with this one. It should be because of his poetry. Or maybe booed by his students of poetry, which is some kind of word order problem, but check your textbook for the specifics. Maybe someone else can help.
b. Possibly that adjuncts like "with pie charts" can only occur after complements like "of the economic situation". That is, the analysis of the economic situation with pie charts is the correct form, because it puts the complement before the adjunct.
c. criticize is a verb that requires an object complement. (It cannot be used "absolutely".) This complement is missing in the example. Your teacher may want you to explain it in terms of arguments of the verb or in terms of transitivity.

CJ

Re: Ungrent! Word Structure - Morphology~ Please help

Mister Micawber — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:21:46 GMT

This looks a lot like homework to me, Civic. Why don't you Google some of these terms?-- inflection, adverb, affix, compound noun.

Ungrent! Word Structure - Morphology~ Please help

Civicjai_11 — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 07:07:06 GMT

Consider the following passage an answer the questions that follow:

Whether we eat at his place or mine, Ryan usually prepares the meal. Tonight I'd volunteered. I cook well, but not instinctively. I need recipes. Arriving home at six, I spent a few minutes recapping my day for Birdie, then took out the folder in which I stuff menus clipped from the Gazette. A five-minute search produced a winner. Grilled Chicken breast with melon salsa. Wild Rice. Tortilla with arugula salad.

(a) Name four different types of inflection and give one example of each taken from the passage above.

(b) Find two adverbs in the passage that are derived from adjectives; Write them down and underline the affix that changed them from an adjective to an adverb.

(c) Find two nouns in the passage that are derived from verbs by affixation; write them down and underline the affix that changed them from verbs into nouns.

(d) write down two compound nouns from the passage

please teach for this question~ Many thanks!