We’ve all been told about what verbs are: they're action words, right?
“Running”, “walking”, “jumping”. These are verbs and they describe an action. So far so good.
But what about verbs like “to have” or “to exist”? These don’t seem like actions. Or what about “to believe”? Is having a belief an action?
In fact, contrary to common definitions of verbs, there are two types of verbs: action and non-action (otherwise known as “stative verbs”, verbs that express a state of being rather than an action). "Have", "exist", and "believe" are three examples.
In addition, there are non-verbs that convey an action, such as “revolution” or “movement”, both of which are nouns.
We can, therefore, now see the limitation of defining verbs as action words, which can lead to confusion in the classroom. For example, students may have difficulty identifying non-action verbs as verbs if they are told to only look out for actions.
Why, then, have we been incorrectly taught that verbs are action words?
It's likely because defining verbs more accurately can be a bit of a mouthful: more nuance is required (as well as some prerequisite knowledge about other grammatical concepts--more on that later).
For this reason, if teachers need a quick place-holder definition of verbs, defining them as action words can be useful, particularly for beginner learners. This can help students get the answer right a high percentage of the time. However, it is advisable for teachers to frame this definition as incomplete at the outset. Then, as the student progresses with their knowledge in grammar, we can replace this provisional definition with a more accurate one (ideally sooner rather than later).
How Verbs Function
What, then, are verbs?
The simplest way to define verbs is in terms of their grammatical or syntactical function: verbs pair with (or conjugate with) grammatical subjects. For example:
I run.
I exist.
Here “run” and “exist” are both verbs, and we can know this because they are each paired with a grammatical subject, which in this case is “I”.
Another example:
They have three cats.
Here “have” is a verb, as it pairs with the subject “They”: “They have”.
They are jumping up and down.
Here “are jumping” is the verb, as it pairs with the subject “They”.
Notice that understanding this definition of a verb requires also knowing what a grammatical subject is (this is an example of the prerequisite knowledge that I referred to above).
Knowing a bit about verb tenses (as well as modalities and voices) helps here too. In English there are twelve main tenses: four for the present, four for the past, and four for the future. In the examples above, “run”, “exist”, and “have” are each in what we call the present simple verb tense. “Are jumping” is in the present progressive verb tense. Each verb tense has a distinct form and appearance, allowing students who are visual learners to more easily identify them.
But what about infinitive phrases, such as “to run” and “to exist”, which can neither pair with a subject nor constitute a verb tense? Does this imply that they are not verbs in a strict sense? Yes, infinitive phrases, because they don't fulfil the two roles in question, are not verbs strictly speaking (insofar as we’re using functional definitions for word-types). Rather, they are known as "verbals", verb-forms that derive from verbs and exhibit many verb-like characteristics, yet don't function precisely as verbs inside a sentence; they instead function as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs.
For example:
This athlete is the one to watch.
Here “to watch” is modifying the noun “one”. “To watch” is therefore functioning as an adjective.
Early on it can be pedagogically useful and pragmatic to speak of infinitives as verbs, but as a student advances in their understanding of grammar, this can be clarified.
So we've now seen that verbs can be more accurately defined in terms of their grammatical functions: they pair with subjects and comprise the form of a tense (or modality).
If a student knows a bit about what grammatical subjects and verb tenses are, then they can quickly grasp this definition.
Role-based definitions of a word-type can be easier to understand than meaning-based ones, as the former allows one to identify a word-type in light of the visual signifier of a word’s appearance in a sentence (i.e., based on its form or placement).
What Verbs Mean
But can we also define verbs in terms of their meaning?
The incorrect definition of verbs as action words seeks to do this. It essentially says that verbs mean or refer to an action of some kind. So let’s see if we can provide this type of definition for verbs, but correctly.
As we’ve seen, verbs pair with grammatical subjects. In this role, they tell us something about the subject. But what is it exactly that they convey?
Let's look at a few examples to help guide us:
I run.
"I run" tells us something that the subject does, an action.
I was saved.
I was loved.
These tell us something that the subject receives, which can be either an action, such as "saved", or a state, such as "loved".
I exist.
This tells us about something the subject is or has (existence, in this case).
I believe Y
This tells us about something the subject has (a belief).
I may do Y
I must do Y
I should do Y.
I could do Y.
I would do Y
I will do Y
These tell us about a subject's modality. Modalities can pertain to a possibility, necessity, willingness, permission, obligation, or suggestion.
In addition, verbs also convey hypothetical meanings in conditionals (i.e., in if-statements) by way of the English subjunctive (but let's bracket this wrinkle for now).
Here, then, is a tally of what we've got so far: verbs convey something about what the subject does, receives, is, has, can do, may do, must do, might do, should do, would do, or will do.
To simplify this, we can say that verbs refer to an action or state that a subject does, has, or receives (with modalities as an exception, and with "has" encompassing all states, including those denoted by "is").
Verbs also, by way of tenses, help us understand when a subject does, receives, or has something. "I run" conveys that I run regularly. "I am running" conveys that I am running right now.
So to sum up, in addition to the functional definitions of verbs that we saw earlier in section two, we can also provide meaning-based ones.
These meaning-based definitions can be somewhat complicated to grasp, requiring a more holistic understanding of grammar. It is thus preferable to either temporarily water-down these definitions or, better yet, reserve them for more advanced learners, opting instead for a function-based definition for beginners.
Nonetheless, these meaning-based definitions paint a clearer picture of what verbs are, and help correct the common myth that verbs can be sufficiently defined as action words.
The English language is incredibly vast and replete with exceptions to rules (which is part of why it's so fun to teach and talk about), so it's entirely possible that my view may be incomplete. My intention here is to spark discussion. Accordingly, please let me know in the comments if you agree or disagree. I’m firmly of the belief that knowledge and explanations can often (if not always) be improved upon, so don’t hesitate to share your perspective.
Are there any topics related to language or grammar specifically that you'd like me write about in an upcoming post? Feel free to let me know and submit a request!
Comments