Between Subject and Object: Using the Grammar of Verbs to Enhance the Therapeutic Construction of Personal Agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe basic English language structure of subject-verb-object divides experience into positions that are socially as well as linguistically meaningful. Clients often seek counseling as a result of feeling acted upon (i.e., being in an object position with respect to the difficulties they are facing), and our work as therapists often entails assisting them to regain a subject position in which they can experience an increased sense of themselves as competent social agents. As the fulcrum between the object and the subject, verbs play a key role in effecting the transition from object to subject positions, and more generally in mediating linguistic constructions of personal agency. This article reviews ways in which we can use the grammar of verbs more deliberately to help clients shift from the object position of feeling acted upon to the subject position of taking effective action with respect to their difficulties. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank Lyndsey Hampton, Yvon LaCour, Tara Perry, Rob Van Dyke, Allan Wade, and Mike Yudcovitch for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. Thanks also to Eleanor Verbicky-Todd for her support in developing these ideas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".