Student Stumper 36: Does “used to” change forms in the negative and in questions?

QUESTION: Does “used to” change forms?

ANSWER: Good question. I thought I was sure of the answer until recently when I had to acknowledge the conflicting explanations and examples of sources I trust. At this point, I can only outline my thoughts and then turn to you, my colleagues, for a more definitive answer.

Thankfully, there’s at least agreement about the form and use of used to in affirmative sentences. All sources explain that this structure refers to past habitual actions, and the same form is used for all subjects. (I used to feel more confident. She used to feel more confident. They used to feel more confident. Etc.) In addition, all sources agree that used to appears in questions and in negative sentences with far less frequency.

The confusion begins when we try to show how to form interrogative and negative sentences. Do we drop the -d and use only “use to”?

First, we need to identify what this verb form is.  Both Biber (73) and Greenbaum (39) use the label marginal modal auxiliary.  ”Marginal” can either be a helpful or harmful term, depending your point of view. Perhaps it’s good to recognize variation in forms because this might allow us to agree to disagree. On the other hand, students seeking a black-and-write explanation may be disappointed if we remain in the gray.

If we include used to in our discussion of modal verbs, we may feel strongly that the form must remain the same. Just as we make no spelling changes to should (Should we talk more? We shouldn’t be so vague.), we might argue the need to follow suit when we use used to: Did you used to think that? They didn’t used to do that.

But do you see the difference? With used to  we insert the auxiliary do in the question and the negative. The only other marginal modal auxiliary that does this is need to: (present) Do we need to talk more? – No, we don’t need to talk more. / (past) Did we need to take more time? – No, we didn’t need to do that. The problem with this comparison is that need to can show present and past tense: I need to do this. / I needed to do that. In contrast, used to is a structure that is limited to the past.

If we group used to more closely with semi-modals, then it becomes easier to accept the changes in form. After all, have to uses the forms had to and didn’t have to.

Part of the problem may be connected to register. Most sources agree that used to is most frequently used in conversation. Like other modal verbs in spoken English, there is reduction. (Have) got to becomes “gotta,” for example, and ought to becomes “otta.” Our ears also recognize “hafta” as have to and “shoulda” as should have. Have our ears grown so accustomed to “usta” that we no longer remember if the verb should be written as used to or use to? 

Greenbaum explains that used to functions as both “an auxiliary and as a main verb with DO-support” (40). Used not to is listed as a British construction, while didn’t use(d) to is listed as being British and informal American English. However, note that the final (d) is listed as a variation. Biber and his team limit their examples of negative forms to used not to and didn’t used to. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English includes examples with Did you use to…? / used not to / didn’t use to.

Perhaps didn’t use to was never a part of prescriptive grammar, but it has become so common in everyday English (particularly American – although I see similarities on US- and UK-operated sites), and now it has become a standard pattern. Is the reason why a good number of online and offline sources teach didn’t use to/ Did you use to…? because descriptive grammar dominated at the discussion table?

I should make a final note that all sources agree on having no change in form when used to is part of an adjective (participial adjective) + preposition combination, as in I’m not used to heated arguments. (= not accustomed to) / You’ll get used to her way of teaching. (become accustomed to)

Please let me know your thoughts. Which forms do  you teach of used to and why?

Sources:

Biber D. et al. (2007). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Greenbaum S. and Quirk R. (1995). A student’s grammar of the English language. Essex: Longman Group UK Limited.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Retrieved from http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/used-to

Student Stumper 35: “As if” and “As though”

QUESTION: What verb forms can follow “as if” or “as though”?

ANSWER: Hm. You’re asking as if I had all the answers!

This question was posted on my community forum. The student wondered if we could say both “as if you didn’t know me” and “as if you don’t know me.” I felt stumped. Was the use of a present verb form incorrect? In an imaginary conversation in my head, it sounded natural: “Why are you looking at me as if you don’t know me?”

Could it be that both forms are acceptable, but one is limited to informal conversation? This would be similar to encountering the use of the simple past “was” in place of the past subjunctive “were” in unreal conditional sentences: “He’d be a good dance partner for you if he were (was) just a bit taller.”

In any case, I immediately felt that verb forms after “as if” and “as though” weren’t limited to the past subjunctive. Do you agree? If so, then please help me list all the possibilities.

1. Past subjunctive. We all agree on this one. This is the verb form textbooks like to use in their examples with “as if”: She walked into the room as if she were royalty. We know that we can also change the verb in the main clause to a present form and the past subjunctive remains correct in the adverb clause: She walks into any room as if she were royalty. (Verified or likely fact: She is not royalty.)

2. Infinitive. In my initial response to the student, I gave this example: She never broke the silence, but she looked at me as if to say, “I’m sorry.” Later, I was happy to see that Biber et. al confirmed the use of the infinitive (what they call a to-clause) after “as if” (841).

3. Present participle. A colleague reminded me that participles also appear after “as if” and “as though.” Biber backs up her claim, at least with the present participle (840). Let’s consider this sentence: With great excitement, the child watched the movie and swung his arms as if fighting his own battle against pirates. That works, right?

4. Past participle. Is this possible? I can’t find a written source to confirm this structure, but my clever colleague supplied a good example. I then created a similar one: The grandfather stood as though baffled by his grandchildren’s behavior. It sounds correct to my ears. How about yours?

Could we explain that the examples with participles are really reduced adverb clauses that originally made use of the past subjunctive?  In other words, “as if fighting” = as if he were fighting and “as though baffled” = as though he were baffled.

One thing we can point out to students is that  although there is variation in the use of “as if” and “as though,” the meaning is always contrary to fact. Also, these adverbial subordinators of manner are used across registers, but they appear most often in fiction (Biber 842).

Source:

Biber, D., et al.  2002.  The Longman student grammar of spoken and written English.  London:  Longman.

Student Stumper 34: While or awhile?

QUESTION: Which is correct, for a while or for awhile?

ANSWER: This question was posted on my community forum. It was easy for me to answer the spelling question.  I know that after the preposition “for” we write two words - a while.  That’s because we need a noun object after a preposition. The tricky part was remembering if and when it was ever correct to use awhile as one word. I probably needed that extra moment or two to think because the adverb awhile is a low frequency word compared to the conjunction or noun while. Checking online dictionaries, I recalled the different parts of speech and common uses of these words. Then I  began to think which I’d teach, for a while or awhile since they could be interchangeable: We sat and relaxed  for a while./ We sat and relaxed awhile. Both mean “for a short period of time.”

I think it’s best to favor the more frequently used vocabulary, but it’s helpful to expose students to the less frequently used words, too. For example, while can also function as a verb. We could challenge students to make sense of the expression “while away the hours” by listening to the lyrics for If I Only Had a Brain. This exercise itself reveals the importance of collocations. We hardly ever use while as a verb, but proficient speakers are familiar with the expression “while away the hours,” so if we are going to use while as a verb, then we would very likely use that particular collocation. The point is that although a while (noun phrase) has higher frequency than awhile (adverb) and while (verb), the latter two are still common enough in certain phrases to make them worth learning.

Common phrases with while: for a little while, for a while longer, once in a while

Common phrases with awhile: stay awhile, sit and stay awhile, rest awhile

Poems are yet another way we might expose students to collocations. In searching for uses of the adverb awhile, I came across L. M Montgomery’s Come, Rest Awhile.  What a wonderful piece to share with upper level students! It will also spark some discussion about the pace of life we tend to have in this new century. Once in a while we need a reminder to slow down and enjoy what’s around us.

Student Stumper 33: Is “would” more polite than “could”?

QUESTION: What’s the difference between would and could?

ANSWER: This question was posted on my forum, and it began a discussion on modals. I first explored differences in meaning. I listed uses of would, including future in the past (You promised you would tell me!) and habitual past (When I was a child, I would ask my grandmother to tell me stories.) Then I explained how could expresses past ability (When Grandma was younger, she could do a cartwheel!) Finally, I noted the overlap in making requests, showing how the two verbs could be interchangeable (Would you please help me?/ Could you please help me?) This is when the student asked if it was correct to assume that “would” is more polite than “could.”

A funny thing happens when you are asked to commit to an answer and put it in print for possibly a hundred or more pairs of eyes to read. You sometimes doubt what you had previously felt certain about. Are “would” and “could” equally polite? I thought so. I did some reflection… and I still think so.

I believe one factor that equalizes these two modal verbs is pronunciation. Either verb could become rude with a change in sentence stress and intonation. For example, compare “Could you please pick that up?” and “Could you please pick that up?!” (Click here to listen.) In these examples, the modal would can be used to perform the same function: (1) make a polite request with no demand or urgency/ (2) make an impatient request born out of frustration.

In terms of choosing between would and could, we can help students by explaining that certain structures suit specific situations best. Examples:

1. would you like = Would you like to sit down? (polite offer/ invitation)

2. would you mind = Would you mind moving down one seat? (tentative request with some worry that it will cause offense, inconvenience, etc.)

3. would it be possible = Would it be possible for you to pick me up on your way to work? (similar to would you mind, used to make an inquiry about a desired action/ request for a favor)

Can you think of any others?

Student Stumper 32: Can TO and FOR both express purpose?

QUESTION: Should I say that a knife is used to cut things or for cutting things? Can both TO and FOR express purpose?

ANSWER: This was a question posed by a YouTube viewer. I responded by acknowledging that both forms were possible in the given example. I speculated about differences in context, but I didn’t explore them. I think my initial answer needs to be expanded on.  I’ll first turn to a trusted source for insight.

In their discussion of gerund and infinitives, Azar and Hagen note the phrase be used for and tie it to the purpose of an object (331). For example, a butter knife is not used for slicing. It’s only used for spreading butter on bread. However, they note that an infitive of purpose is also possible to express a general purpose: A butter knife is only used to spread butter, not slice things. A good distinction Azar and Hagen make is that only an infintive of purpose is used in a specific context: I had no knife, so I used a spoon to spread the butter on my bread. (“For spreading” cannot substitute.)

I’d like to go beyond structure and consider semantics. I think we can further define purpose. Do we mean reason  or intention? To explain why something happened (reason), we can use for + noun/pronoun object: He received a medal for his bravery. / He gained recognition for his heroic acts. To explain what someone hoped to gain from doing an action (intention), we can use an infinitive: He put his own life in danger (in order) to save his comrades. I find it difficult to paraphrase this last example so that it includes for + a noun object. Would we say “for the safety and survival of his comrades”? It’s possible, but it sounds wordy to my ears. I prefer the simplicity of the infinitive “to save his comrades.”  I think then we might be able to conclude that there are more frequent or preferred patterns when it comes to expressing reason or intention.

A final definition of purpose could be a goal, that is, what a person wishes to obtain. In such a situation, I think either an infinitive or for + noun object could be used: I returned to school for a degree in marketing. / I returned to school (in order) to receive a degree in marketing.

What are your thoughts? Do you think the difference between an infinitive of purpose and for + gerund/ noun object goes beyond form?

Source:

Azar, Betty S. and Hagen, Stacy A. Understanding and Using English Grammar. Pearson Longman, 2009.

Student Stumper 31: Can abstract nouns be specific?

QUESTION: How can I know if an uncountable noun, which is modified by an adjective, is specific or not? Should I ignore the modifier when deciding the use of the definite article or zero article?

ANSWER: This question was recently posted on my YouTube channel. The advanced ELL provided lengthy examples of abstract nouns in context with and without the definite article. I gave an initial response already, but the topic truly warrants further discussion. Would you care to join in?

What exactly is confusing about the use of articles with abstract nouns? There are at least two sources of confusion:

• (1) Confusion can arise from the guideline we often give about generic and specific references. Learners might associate abstract nouns with generic references and conclude that the definite article can’t be used with words such as intervention, affection, and politics.
• (2) Confusion can also stem from the assumption that a modifier makes a noun specific, so phrases like biomedial intervention, genuine affection, and British politics are specific and require use of the definite article.

Explanation 1: A noun that is both abstract and uncountable can be used in either a generic or specific reference.

a. intervention

• (generic) The problem escalated, and [zero article] intervention was required.
• (specific) Despite the timely intervention, a positive outcome was not attained.
• (specific) Unfortunately, the intervention was not successful.

b. affection

• (generic) [zero article] Affection between owners and pets is natural.
• (specific) The deep affection between the woman and her cat was obvious.
• (specific) The affection between those those was genuine.

Explanation 2:  As seen above, it’s the context that makes a noun specific, and not necessarily the use of a modifier. It was the intervention which was needed and which was given in a timely manner.  It was the affection which existed between the woman and her cat. Compare:

c. intervention: They say that [zero article] biomedical intervention can slow down the aging process.

d. affection: [zero article] Deep affection among cousins is common.

In the above examples, the modifier explained the kind or type, but it didn’t make the abstract, uncountable noun specific.

Explanation 3: A noun can be both uncountable and countable. Politics is an example:

e.  politics

• (generic – uncountable) John entered [zero article] politics at a young age.
• (generic – plural noun) I try not to get involved in [zero article] office politics.
• (specific – plural noun) The office politics continued to make my job harder, so I eventually left the company.

Feel free to contribute your own examples.

Student Stumper 30: Is “rather than” a preposition?

Click to listen to my introduction to Student Stumper 30.

QUESTION: Is “rather than” a preposition?

ANSWER: Good question! Let’s study some of the examples from Student Stumper 29 and see if we can come to a conclusion.

First, let’s not confuse rather than with would rather (…than).

• EXAMPLE 1: She said she‘d rather stay home than go out.

In the above example, we see the semi-modal would rather expressing preference, and two alternatives are named and separated by the preposition than. Now look at examples 2-4:

• EXAMPLE 2: I’ll watch a romantic comedy rather than an action movie any day of the week.
• EXAMPLE 3: I forgot my glasses at home, so rather than straining to see from the back, I took a seat towards the front.
• EXAMPLE 4: Thank you, but I’ve decided to buy these rather than those.

I’d argue that in all the statements above we could replace rather than with instead of. Instead of is a preposition with the meaning “in place of”. In all three examples above, an indirect object follows rather than: a noun phrase (an action movie), a gerund phrase (straining to see from the back), and a pronoun (those). In meaning and in use, rather than is a preposition in examples 2-4.

Now for the tricky part. Take a look at these examples from Student Stumper 29:

• EXAMPLE 5:  I decided go out rather than stay home.
• EXAMPLE 6: Tonight I think I’d like to go to a movie rather than go dancing.

The idea of alternatives is still present in these examples; however, we can no longer replace rather than with instead of. The words that follow rather than are not in the form of an indirect object. We do not have a noun, pronoun, or gerund, but the base form of a verb. As I think about these examples more, I’m forced to consider an overlap of word classes. In the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (2007), Biber et al address the sometimes blurred borderline between prepositions and subordinating conjunctions (2.4.5.3 Table 2.5 and 2.4.8.3 Table 2.7). In examples 5 and 6, are we seeing rather than used as a subordinator? That would explain the possible use of a base verb after rather than.

All this reflection is interesting, but how can we help our students decide if a gerund or base verb should be used after rather than? Just as we see “instead of” as synonymous with rather than the preposition, could we view “and not” as synonymous with rather than the subordinator? Let’s test this out:

• EXAMPLE 5: I decided go out rather than stay home.= I decided to go out and not stay home.
• EXAMPLE 6: Tonight I think I’d like to go to a movie rather than go dancing.= Tonight I think I’d like to go to a movie and not go dancing.

I think it would be safe to teach students that rather than helps express a negative alternative, that is, an alternative which is not preferred to another. Rather than can behave like a preposition or a subordinating conjunction, but in practice, students should simply know that this two-word expression can be followed by a noun or pronoun. In additional, it can be followed by a gerund if “instead of” can serve as a substitute, or it can be followed by a base verb if “and not” can serve as a substitution.

Comments?

Student Stumper 29: Rather vs. Rather than

QUESTION: How do we use rather than?

ANSWER: To help students understand one piece of grammar, it’s often helpful to compare and contrast it with another.

Rather as a single word is an adverb. We use it to express a degree. Usually it lowers the degree of an adjective. For example, if I say she’s rather pretty it doesn’t sound as nice a compliment as she’s pretty. On the other hand, rather can express a higher degree than expected: “I thought it would be cool this morning, but it’s rather warm.”

If we combine would with rather, we get the semi-modal would rather. It helps us express preferences. It’s similar in meaning to would prefer. The semi-modal would rather can appear with the preposition than to show an alternative. Students should not confuse would rather…than with the two-word preposition rather than, which never separates and has the meaning of instead of.  I find it logical and interesting to compare these structures because they both link to the concept of alternatives, that is, having a choice. Here are examples to study:

1. Wouldn’t you rather go out and have fun? [semi-modal]
2. Maybe tomorrow night. Tonight I‘d rather stay home. I need to study. [semi-modal]
3. She said she‘d rather stay home than go out. [semi-modal with than as a preposition]
4. I decided go out rather than stay home. [preposition*]
5. Tonight I think I’d like to go to a movie rather than go dancing. [preposition*]
6. I’ll watch a romantic comedy rather than an action movie any day of the week. [preposition]
7. I forgot my glasses at home, so rather than straining to see from the back, I took a seat towards the front. [preposition*]
8. Seeing a movie rather than dancing at a club proved to be a good choice. [preposition*]

As a preposition, rather than can be followed by a noun, pronoun, or gerund. Examples 5, 6, and 8 demonstrate the need for parallel structure. However, I turn to you, my readers, and ask if you agree with examples 4, 5, 7, and 8. Isn’t it interesting and rather odd (*smile*) that I use a base verb in 4 and 5 and a gerund in 7 and 8? Do you care to offer an opinion on that? Also, I could add one more example, one that sounds correct but seems odd when you begin to analyze the structure: I chose to sit in the front rather than (in) the back. Here I use parallel structure and balance two prepositional phrases. Comments?

This question was submitted by a YouTube viewer, and before I post my answer for learners to study on YouTube, I decided to test the waters here among other teachers. I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on the use of rather than.

Please check out Student Stumper 30 to consider an overlap of word classes. We’ll decide if use of the gerund and use of the base verb are correct, and if so, why.

Student Stumper 28: Gerunds v. Present Participles

QUESTION: What are all the ‘-ing’ words in the following sentence? He doesn’t like to waste time sitting around talking and drinking coffee.

ANSWER: I know there are some who don’t like using the term “gerund”, but I’m not part of that camp. In my mind, it’s easier to understand and teach English grammar when we distinguish gerunds from present participles. They both are formed by adding -ing to the base form of a verb, but that’s where their similarities end.*

Gerunds behave like nouns. They can be used as single words or in phrases.  Gerunds and gerund phrases can be subjects and objects. They can also be appositives and complements. Let me offer examples to illustrate.

1. Explaining grammar to students requires both logic and creativity. [gerund = subject]
2. I enjoy explaining grammar to students and discussing grammar with colleagues. [gerund = direct object; there are 2 objects of "enjoy"]
3. There’s much I love about teaching. [gerund = indirect object]
4. The last topic, teaching advanced grammar, caused anxiety for more than one trainee. [gerund = appositive (a reduced adjective clause)]
5. The challenge most find difficult to overcome is teaching mixed levels. [gerund = subject complement; "the challenge" = "teaching"]
6. I had some difficulty teaching mixed levels. [gerund = noun complement; "teaching mixed levels" helps to describe and limit "difficulty"]

Do you agree with all six examples? I think most student books limit the presentation of gerunds to their roles as subjects and objects, but Jay Maurer in Focus on Grammar 5: An Integrated Skills Approach (2006) does address gerunds as complements. His discussion in Unit 15 would add a seventh example to my list: “He spends time reading” (260). Maurer identifies “reading” as an object complement, that is, a complement in a noun phrase. “Reading” is a complement to “time”. He offers another example with a negative gerund: “She found him not working” (260). We can now identify “sitting” in our original statement as an object complement: (He doesn’t like to waste time sitting around talking and drinking coffee.)

All right. So let’s define present participles. In my understanding, they differ from gerunds in that they cannot behave like nouns. Present participles either function as verbs or adjectives. We see the present participle in progressive tenses and reduced adverb clauses. We also see present participles as modifiers. My examples:

1.  I am trying my best to explain my view on this grammar topic. [present participle as part of the present progressive]
2. When researching grammar topics, I often turn to gurus like Azar, Biber, Greenbaum, and Quirk. [present participle with an active meaning, reduced from "When I research"]
3. Grammar is not an interesting subject for anyone else in my family. [present participle as an adjective; it modifies "subject"]

Returning to the original statement, He doesn’t like to waste time sitting around talking and drinking coffee, I’d identify “talking and drinking” as present participles in an adverb phrase of time. There’s no subordinating conjunction, but the time relationship is clear. He can waste time and sit around while talking and drinking coffee. All the actions can be in progress at the same time.

Summary of answer: He doesn’t like + (what?) > The infinitive “to waste” is the object. “Time” is the object in the infinitive clause [to waste + (what?)]. “Sitting around” is the complement of “time”. “Talking and drinking coffee” is an adverbial phrase that expresses the idea “while”.

*I’ll end this discussion here, but I’m sure we can always continue it another time, especially since Biber, Conrad, et al could challenge me by asking me to identify the -ing word in the following example, which they give in Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (2007): “There’s no denying it” (67).

Student Stumper 27: Embedded Questions

Click here if you’d like to listen to my discussion of Student Stumper 27.

QUESTION: What’s an embedded question and how do we use it?

ANSWER: These are the questions I’m trying to answer for my YouTube audience. A viewer made this inquiry a while ago, and I promised to address this topic in a future video. Well, the future is here. I’ve already posted Part 1, and I’ve committed to a basic definition and two standard uses.

First off, I think we’d all agree to define an embedded question as a dependent noun clause. It has other names, such as a wh- clause and a noun clause with a question word. I chose to use “embedded question” because it explains the positioning within a statement. Embedded questions are placed inside a larger question or a statement: Do you know what time it is? / I don’t understand why he did that.

Although I see overlap with indirect or reported questions, I don’t see them as being one and the same. Here’s an example of overlap: [direct speech] “Why did he do that?” / [indirect question/ embedded question] I wondered why he did that. However, embedded questions go beyond reporting conversations. Consider these statements as part of my argument: I think you’re forgetting why he came here in the first place. / What he said yesterday came as a surprise to everyone.

As a noun clause, an embedded question has a subject and a verb, and because it’s not a real question we use sentence word order. Compare: [real question] What time is it? / [embedded question] Do you know what time it is?

All right. Are we in agreement so far? Then let’s get into the nitty-gritty: the uses of embedded questions. As noun clauses, I’d argue we use embedded questions much as we do single-word nouns. In Part 1 of my YouTube lesson, I limited my presentation to subjects and direct objects, emphasizing that it’s most common for embedded questions to follow verbs, especially when we’re politely requesting information:  Could you explain why plants need sunlight?

Nouns clauses have other uses, don’t they? Take a look and see if you agree with my examples and conclusions.

1)      Objects of prepositions: It all depends on how much the project will cost and when you plan to launch it.

2)      Object complement (what some books refer to as object predicative and what a colleague of mine refers to as a double object): Can you ask her what time she plans to arrive?

3)      Subject complement (what some books refer to as subject predicative): The main problem is how we’re going to pay for all this.

4)      Complement in an adjective phrase: Be careful what you say and how you say it.

5)      Complement in a noun phrase: The question why I am here is not the issue. / We had no idea how worried you were. / They calmly discussed the matter of whose fault it was and who would pay for the damage.

 

My biggest doubts still lie in the use of an embedded question as complement in a noun phrase. Biber et al. recognize this function of wh- clauses in Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (194, 3.11.1) and continue with a discussion on head nouns that take wh- interrogative clauses (656, 8.14.4). While I appreciate the detailed examination in that book, I worry about information overload. How can we teach advanced students about other uses of embedded questions without thoroughly confusing them?

I want to be thorough in my explanation for students, but I also wish to simplify as much as possible.  I may decide to state there are two other uses of embedded questions besides subjects and direct objects; we can use embedded questions as indirect objects and complements. Examples can demonstrate different kinds of complements.

Any thoughts? I’d appreciate feedback before I publish Part 2 of my YouTube lesson. Thank you!

Sources:

Azar, Betty S. and Hagen, Stacy A. Understanding and Using English Grammar. Pearson Longman, 2009.

Biber, D. et al. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman, 2002.