I teach non-native speakers and I recently had a student say "I’m work at ...". I corrected them by saying that we never put two verbs together (advice I read somewhere).
Later, I had the same student ask me why we have two verbs together in the following sentence: "The only facility we have is a swimming pool." The verbs being "... have is ...".
Can anyone advise me on the best way to correct the first mistake and how best to explain the second issue? I’ve hunted for an answer, but it’s a bit out of my depth.
[quote author=MarcusA link=board=grammar;num=1046944530;start=0#0 date=03/06/03 at 04:55:30]I teach non-native speakers and I recently had a student say "I’m work at ...". I corrected them by saying that we never put two verbs together (advice I read somewhere).
I’ve never heard that before, but I guess it works. You might want to explain (eventually?) that we can have compound verbs… It’s been many years, so I may be wrong with the name, but I think that’s what it’s called. An example would be the following:
I like to sing and play piano.
[quote author=MarcusA link=board=grammar;num=1046944530;start=0#0 date=03/06/03 at 04:55:30]Later, I had the same student ask me why we have two verbs together in the following sentence: "The only facility we have is a swimming pool." The verbs being "... have is ...".
This second example contains an understood ‘that’. "The only facility (that) we have is…" If I remember correctly (again, it’s been many years), that is called a subordinate clause. You can leave subordinate clauses completely out of the sentences that contain them, and they are still complete sentences.
I’m getting ready for work now, so I can’t write more at this moment, but I’ll check back later.
Reaching back into the murky depths of Chomsky grammar, I’d say the structure is X = Y, where X is "the only facility we have" and Y is "swimming pool". I think that’s what Sitran means.
Tim Ward is also correct when he points out that X contains a subordinate clause "[that] we have". By definition, a clause will contain a verb.
SO…. your pupil’s example is actually a sentence consisting of two clauses. The main clause "The only facility is a swimming pool" with a subordinate clause "[that we have]".
SO…. the rule about not using two verbs together can be a little tricky without the caveat that we mean together in a single clause, in addition to the exception of compound verbs, etc. Since most pupils wouldn’t know a subordinate clause from a hole in the ground, it’s not a very useful rule for ESL, in my opinion.
I think the origins of your pupil’s initial mistake might simply be confusion between the present continuous tense (I am working) and the simple present tense (I work). And, of course, that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.
[quote author=MarcusA link=board=grammar;num=1046944530;start=0#0 date=03/06/03 at 04:55:30]I’m work at ...
I corrected them by saying that we never put two verbs together (advice I read somewhere).
The only facility we have is a swimming pool." The verbs being "... have is ...".
Can anyone advise me on the best way to correct the first mistake and how best to explain the second issue? I’ve hunted for an answer, but it’s a bit out of my depth.
The first example should (of course) be ‘I am working at’ - (a present participle?) and work is part of the verb and because it is ongoing takes the -ing at the end.
This is not about using two verbs. I’ve never heard that advice, BTW.
Now the second example; we have is definitely a verb construct even if it is part of something else. But I see that Palewriter has posted even as I type so I’ll end abruptl…
[quote author=Palewriter link=board=grammar;num=1046944530;start=0#3 date=03/06/03 at 09:40:38]I think the origins of your pupil’s initial mistake might simply be confusion between the present continuous tense (I am working) and the simple present tense (I work). And, of course, that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.
Excellent can of worms, Palewriter! :)
This specific differences in subject/verb construction—I work… and I am working—can pose some problems for ESL students.
From my brief sojourn into Español in high school, I seem to recall that the above example can be expressed exactly the same way in that language and should be a matter of context as to construing the author’s/speaker’s message.
Well, you can say "estoy trabajando en…" (something), meaning "at the moment I am working on ..." (thus and such). But you can’t use that form to say "I am working at" (whatever). So, yes, "trabajando" can be used for both of those forms.
This specific differences in subject/verb construction—I work… and I am working—can pose some problems for ESL students.
Exactly.
[Palewriter goes into a trance, transporting himself back to some very dark, long-ago day in TEFL hell].
I believe the common explanation is to point out reflects the same as the difference between "continuous" and "continual" (another bugbear).
In other words, "I am washing the car" (right now, as we speak, I haven’t finished yet, I’m in the middle of it) versus "I wash the car" (not continuously but repeatedly, once a month, week, etc). So "I’m working on my needlepoint" indicates a steady, unfinished action. "Every night, I work on my needlepoint" indicates a series of finite actions". "I work at MacDonalds" (every day, repeatedly).
The motley assembly of students, eyes glazed over, nod as if they’ve understood. One of them raises a hand. "When I come to school this morning, I am seeing a big sign for running shoes who says "Just do it". So you says it must be more correcter "Just doing it"?
Palewriter groans and ponders dinner and a career change.
[quote author=AgDrgn link=board=grammar;num=1046944530;start=0#7 date=03/06/03 at 11:25:43] So, yes, "trabajando" can be used for both of those forms.
No, you’ve switched it, trabajo can be used for either. Trabajando isn’t a verb. But the general sentiment is right.
I’ve never had much of a problem with the present progressive, perhaps because there isn’t much need for it unless you want to be specific, which can be done in other ways. But a related problem, whether to use Spanish’s preterit and imperfect tenses… uy! It seems designed to torment me sometimes. ;)
Digressing back to the original topic, like any rule, this rule about never having two verbs in a row is good in general, the main difficulty lying in identifiying just how a word is working in a sentence. For the particular example, the sentence could just as easily be phrased, "The swimming pool is the only facility (that) we have." I would argue more in depth, but mostly I’d just be rehashing stuff other people have already said. It’s a rule that usually works, and could very well be made perfect with qualifications, but then it loses it’s brevity…
I teach English to non-native speakers in Brazil and I know what you are talking about. The advice I have for you is, never say "never" when explaining grammar rules. Say "usually", "often", "it sounds better", anything. There is a bomb out there that will go off in your face in due time:
Student: "I don’t am rich".
Teacher: "We never use do and be in the same clause".
Timebomb: "Don’t be silly." "Do be quiet."
My students say "I’m work" a lot too. I think this happens because the first thing they learn is the verb to be, and they get so used to it that they can’t help saying "I’m" all the time. They forget that "am" carries meaning. That’s what I tell them: "I am" means one thing, "I work" means another, "I’m work" doesn’t mean anything. When they come up with messed-up structures I avoid terminology (such as "relative pronouns", "subordinate clauses"). I just say, "that doesn’t work in English. Your listener won’t understand you if you say that that way. Instead, say…"
I think the best explanation for beginners is the one that sticks to meaning, not structure. Rules like "two verbs together" are strictly structural. But what does the sentence mean? One of the procedures I have is to ask, "do you mean ‘I am at work’, ‘I am working’ or ‘I work’?" I’ve just noticed I used "have is to ask"- three verbs in a row! I hope no beginners are reading this.
As to "the only facility we have is…" the only possible explanation is going into terminology - relative pronouns, one of the most difficult grammar points to explain, I think. Your student sounds like a beginner, so I suggest you give him a technical but brief explanation which he won’t understand anyway. You should comfort him by saying that the grammar point is too complex for him to grasp right now, and that he should not worry about it at the moment.
It would help to know what language your students speak in case you really need to give them a complete explanation of relative pronouns.
Excellent advice, Starphilos. Speaking as an ex-teacher of Swedish English learners, I came to precisely this conclusion. Intention over structure, at least initially. I also found it essential to learn pretty good Swedish. At that point, I could give basic grammer lessons in Swedish (Sweden, like most other countries, had virtually abandoned any form of school grammar education) and create an awareness for the basics of structure. This I could then build on in English. I found it the only way to get anywhere. Starting with the rules simply leads to pain and misery. IMHO.
