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] ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~