This message was originally  submitted by
[log in to unmask] to
the ATEG in reply to  Ed Vavra  ([log in to unmask])
>
> Bob Yates wrote:
> One defines a verb as a word that shows action.  And,
> the "main verb" of a sentence is what the "subject" is
> doing or has done?
>
>         So what is the "main verb" of the following
> sentences?
>
>         Bob is playing on the computer.
>         Bob enjoys playing on the computer.
>         Bob is happy playing on the computer.
>
> Playing is the most "action" word in all three, right?
>
> The only way to figure out what is the "main verb" is to
> talk about form and function.
>
>
> ----------------------
> I guess I'm slow, but I don't understand the
> explanation.
 
The reason you don't understand the explanation is that it is mostly
false, from the point of view of accurate linguistic description.
 
'Subject' is a notion best understood not in terms of the sentence, but in
terms of the larger discourse. Subjects are chosen based on topic and
information structure. At the sentence level, most any nominal (noun
phrase, infinitive phrase, clause) can be a subject; and there are few
good sentence-level definitions for 'subject'. The best one is 'the thing
that determines the form of the verb', but English verbs have so little
variation in form that it's not much use, especially to younger learners.
 
The 'explanation' you cite confuses 'subject' with 'agent' ('agent' is a
technical term for a nominal that names a person/thing that is carrying
out or engaging in an action; it varies within itself (i.e. there are more
and less 'active' agents). Of course, not all subjects are agents! Some
are undergoers, as in 'Bill got bonked on the head', some are experiencers
(as in 'Bill enjoys ...', some are relatively role-less topics (i.e. they
don't play some role in the scene described by the sentence), as in 'Bill
is happy ...' (although some languages treat subjects of verbs of emotion
as experiencers).
 
And not all agents are subjects: they are often coded as objects of
prepositions, as in passives with 'by': Bill got bonked by _his friend_.
They can also be direct objects that are simultaneously subjects of
reduced clauses, as in 'I saw Mary eating strawberries'. As far as 'eating
strawberries' goes, 'Mary' is the agent, but as far as 'see' goes, she is
the undergoer (the one seen). Grammatically, 'Mary' is a direct object in
this sentence. Choice of direct object is also discourse-motivated.
 
The only-partly-false part of the 'explanation' is the implication that
verbs always portray action. The prototypical or 'verbiest' of verbs, like
'kick', 'throw' certainly portray actions, but many, many verbs do not.
Once again, the best definition of a verb is grammatical, according to how
it changes to show person, number, and tense. The notion 'verb phrase' can
to a certain extent be defined within the sentence, and also has discourse
functions.
 
I can tie this answer in to an answer to the previous posting about
terminology and agreeing on a core of grammar concepts that a K-12
curriculum should 'cover', and also to teacher training. I am trying to
develop a short, basic grammar course that can be adapted to lower grades.
So I am very interested in this discussion. In general (specifics to
follow, if, as I hope, the discussion continues), I definitely believe
that the form/function difference should be explicitly taught in language
arts. This would have to wait for cognitive readingess for metalinguistic
awareness, which doesn't develop until third or fourth grade in some
children. I think we need to seriously re-think how much metalinguistics
(e.g. terminology like 'noun', 'sentence', 'subject' should be taught in
the early grades. I'm for teachinng none at all until about third grade,
and letting children before then just USE the language lots, and lots, and
lots, reading, writing, speaking,  listening, imagining, with plenty of
language sources around them.
 
In general, most of the definitions and the scope and sequence of grammar
in textbooks in current use need complete revision, in the view of this
linguist (who has also been delving quite a lot into children's language
and cognitive development over the past few years). Nearly all of them are
confusing, misleading, or outright wrong.
 
I don't mean to offend those who love the tradition as it is. But we have
to admit that grammar teaching has not been very successful for the
_majority_ of schoolchildren through the ages, and that there are better
reasons than 'lowering standards' for its current unpopularity.
 
As to teacher ed., I firmly believe that teachers need a lot of
linguistics -- that is, language arts teachers K-8 and secondary English
teachers. If I had my druthers, they would do a full year of linguistics,
covering a relatively detailed description of the English language, with
child language development and sociolinguistics as well. They need more
detail than they will teach to their students. I haven't been a teacher of
English to native speakers at any level (except college comp.), but I have
a lot of years as a teacher of English to speakers of other languages.
Frankly, I can't envision having been good at this without my linguistics
training. The difference that knowing linguistics makes is phenomenal.
 
I hope there will be a few people who would like to carry on this
discussion over the next few weeks. I am writing a short textbook for use
in my litte grammar course (it's 2 units, half a normal course here), and
would love to post my topic sequence and talk about all kinds of stuff. I
will eventually put something on my website, but not the whole textbook.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Assistant Professor, Linguistics              ~
English Department, California Polytechnic State University   ~
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407                                     ~
Tel. (805)-756-2184  E-mail: [log in to unmask]      ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~