[Grammar] Stative present continuous posture verbs

Status
Not open for further replies.

timtak

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Japan
There are many verbs that represent mental acts that do not require motion in the present continuous.

There are also a class of verbs that are stative in the present continuous in that they do not require any motion nor apparently a mental act: "posture verbs"

Consider

He is standing / sitting / leaning over / leaning on/ leaning out/ hanging from/ riding/ slouching / kneeling / bending over, bending down / prostrating himself/ lying / holding out his had/ holding his hand up.

These all seem to refer to a state. Or do they? Bearing in mind that the same verbs may be more natural in the present when applied to inanimate objects (e.g. a clock stands in the hall is more natural perhaps than a clock is standing in the hall, winning a googlefight 10 hits to 0), perhaps these posture verbs refer to the mental action, the act of will required to maintain them.

In in which case they would be like the many verbs that refer to mental acts such as thinking feeling which are also used in the present continuous to refer to seeming stative phenomena, where the action is taking place mentally.

However, consider lying and sleeping. Lying down does not seem to require a mental act. Sleeping does not, by definition, require any mental activity at all (except when dreaming).



PS These forums not only log people out quickly, they also do not save changes made, so that after one is forced to log in again, ones post is lost. So if you make a long post you may loose it. I hope that the site admin allows people to remain logged in for longer, or that form data be saved after login. In the mean time I recommend that users save their entries before they post.
 
Last edited:

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I believe the opposition of present simple vs. present continuous is mostly about a permanent vs. temporary characteristic of an object. It doesn't have much to do with an action vs. state. The posture of a living being is, naturally, temporary, while the posture of a dummy is permanent. So "The Prime Minister is standing in the corner" but "The wax model of the Prime Minister stands in the corner".
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I believe the opposition of present simple vs. present continuous is mostly about a permanent vs. temporary characteristic of an object. .


I agree with Pokemon, in part at least. I do not think that the present simple is necessarily about permanent charateristics, though situations presented in the present simple are viewed as less temporary than those presented in the present continuous. I feel that we use the continuous aspect when we wish to draw attention to the fact that the situation spoken of has duration, and that the duration is limited. That may seem to be a long-winded way of saying what Pokemon said more succinctly, but the word duration is important for me.

I have expanded on this idea at boring length here:
http://www.gramorak.com/Articles/Tense.pdf
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I agree with Pokemon, in part at least. I do not think that the present simple is necessarily about permanent charateristics, though situations presented in the present simple are viewed as less temporary than those presented in the present continuous. I feel that we use the continuous aspect when we wish to draw attention to the fact that the situation spoken of has duration, and that the duration is limited. That may seem to be a long-winded way of saying what Pokemon said more succinctly, but the word duration is important for me.

I have expanded on this idea at boring length here:
http://www.gramorak.com/Articles/Tense.pdf

I don't like the word 'duration' when we talk about the continuous aspect in general. It may sometimes be misguiding. For example, 'We stayed at the hotel for 3 days'. Is it an action of duration? Yes, it is. Then why isn't the past countinuous used? I think duration is somehow associated with the time limits of an event. And when the time limits are specified we are normally interested in how long the event lasted, and use non-continuous tenses for it. I'm not saying always: for instance, "What were you doing from 5 till 7 p.m.?" But this word, duration, drives my focus in a different direction.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I don't like the word 'duration' when we talk about the continuous aspect in general. It may sometimes be misguiding. For example, 'We stayed at the hotel for 3 days'. Is it an action of duration? Yes, it is. Then why isn't the past countinuous used? Because the speaker has not chosen to place any emphasis on the duration or on the limited-ness of the duration.
5jj
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation

Ok, let's put such an emphasis. Which would you choose:"We stayed at the hotel only 3 days", or "We were staying at the hotel only 3 days"?
 

timtak

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Japan
This thread has gone in an unexpected direction.

My original interest was in why the "posture verbs" take the present continuous though they do not seem to contain an action, or at least motion.

Would it be a good idea to see them as being in the present continuous because they are impermanent?

No one stands/sits/slouches/leans etc forever.

Hmmm

"He is blowing a bubble", means that he is in the process of blowing a bubble, not that a bubble has been blown. On the other hand "he is sitting", means that "he is seated", not that he is in the process of sitting. Even though it might be argued both the bubble, and the seated position are impermanent.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
This thread has gone in an unexpected direction.

My original interest was in why the "posture verbs" take the present continuous though they do not seem to contain an action, or at least motion.

Would it be a good idea to see them as being in the present continuous because they are impermanent?

No one stands/sits/slouches/leans etc forever.

I think that your 'posture verbs' are like all verbs. When the situation (action, state, event, process) has duration, and that duration is limited, and when the speaker wishes to note these two things, the continuous aspect will be used. I think you are right in suggesting that a stative verb approach to continuous forms is not always helpful but I don't, yet, see how a posture-verb approach helps much either. I am working on it!:)
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Ok, let's put such an emphasis. Which would you choose:"We stayed at the hotel only 3 days", or "We were staying at the hotel only 3 days"?

That is a very difficult question to answer without full context. Working on nothing but the words given, I think that I would probably use the simple form in my utterance. The three days gives the limited time period, only places a further type of limitation on the period, and the past tense identifies the time period as a completed situation.
 

timtak

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Japan
It seems to me that posture verbs can be quite impermanent, compared to other verbs and still be in the present continuous.

It seems to be relevant that they are intransitive, or reflexive.

And anyway, isn't it strange that "I am standing" should refer to my erect posture rather than to my movement to the standing position? It seems strange to me, and strange to my students.


Perhaps I am being influenced by the japanese language (I am a British national but I have lived in Japan 21/45 years).

There is a large class of Japanese verbs called "subject change verbs" that likewise take the "present continuous" (or its Japnaese equivalent) even though they refer to a change haven taken place (e.g. fattening, falling, opening, closing, crossing in Japanese refer to the subject having got fat, fallen, opened, closed or crossed) and not to the act of change in process.

Here is a page that mentions Japanese "subject change verbs"
A Study of "V-te iru" in Japanese

Under the influence of these verbs, and realising that there are some verbs in English that though static take the present continuous, I came under the impression that in English too, while more limited in number, there are also "subject change verbs" (though limited to subject-posture-change) that likewise represent the effect of the verb *having been carried out* rather than *in the process of being carried out,* even in the present continuous.

For that matter, even in the present, "a machine stands in the corridoor" refers to a static machine, rather than to a machine which is slowly rising (or repeatedly rising) from the floor of the corridoor. This is obvious to a native speaker, but not to someone form another language. A machine throws in the corridoor, a machine falls over in the corridoor, a machine moves in the corridoor all refer to some movement going on. But stand refers to the motion already having happened.

These "posture change" verbs are used in TOEIC Part I (photograph interpretation) questions as a right answer that Japanese people have trouble recognising. Believing that the present continuous in English refers to a movement, and seeing no movement in the photo, they do not realise that "He is leaning on the desk" is correct.

Standing can mean the act in process in both Japanese and English "Look, the national anthem is starting, they are standing now." But in the vast majority of cases, "I am standing" does not mean that "I am standing!" It means I have already stood up, I have standed up!

Tim
Timothy Takemoto
 
Last edited:

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Frankly speaking, not knowing Japanese, it's difficult to look at the world with their eyes. I understand there are considerable typological differences between English and Japanese, which means they structure time, space, motion, etc. differently and their language works differently. So it's natural that they are trying to project their system of concepts onto the target language, and you are trying to understand what's going on in their minds. However I don't think it makes much sense to adjust the semantics of the English grammatical categories to Japanese mentality. On the contrary, it should be the other way round. Otherwise they will speak not English but Japlish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5jj

timtak

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Japan
If you know Japanese then it makes it obvious that something strange is going on in English too, but it is not important. Forget I mentioned Japanese.


Why do posture verbs refer to states and not movements?

Why does "sitting" refer to the a state of being seated, rather than to moving from the erect to seated position, why does "sitting" refer to "having sat"?

Why does "standing" refer to the erect state, rather than to moving to the erect position, why does "standing" refer to "having stood"?

"Taking" does not refer to "having taken". If I am taking a piece of cake then I am holding a piece of cake and moving my arm away from the table towards my plate.

"Throwing" does not refer to having thrown the ball. If I am throwing then then by arm is in motion.

Posture verbs are not like other verbs.

Is "standing" (refering to a motionless state) in the present continuous because the act of standing is often brief (only guardsmen stand for more than a couple of hours), because it is intentional (if one did not keep trying to remain standing one would fall down), or because it is reflexive?

Reflexivity does seem to be important, but there are many verbs such as "hitting myself" which refer to movement, not to having hit myself. The reflexivity of posture verbs is embedded. In the (slightly archaic) phrase "He sat himself down," suddenly the present continuous "he is sitting himself down" does not refer to the seated state, but to the act of placing his posterior on a seat.

This is an important point but I am not sure why embedded reflexivity should turn a verb into a state verb into a stative present continuous verb.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
If you know Japanese then it makes it obvious that something strange is going on in English too, but it is not important. Forget I mentioned Japanese.


Why do posture verbs refer to states and not movements?

Why does "sitting" refer to the a state of being seated, rather than to moving from the erect to seated position, why does "sitting" refer to "having sat"?

Why do we call a tree a 'tree' and not a 'klib'? That question is not as facetious as it might appear. We can see how some words have acquired certain meanings over time, but it is impossible to say why one particular group of sounds was originally used to refer to one action, state, event or process. It just happens that that we can say today, in English:

He is sitting (down) now = he is moving towards a seated position.
He is sitting next to George. = he is in a seated position.

Geman uses two different verbs, 'sich setzen' and 'sitzen', but English doesn't, though we tend to use 'down' with the movement and not with the position.


The same is true of 'stand', 'lie', 'kneel', etc.
You wrote, "Forget I mentioned Japanese". I can't. I think that is possible that you have noticed something about what you call 'posture verbs' that I for one had not noticed before. However, I also think that it is possible that you are seeing a problem where none exists, because you are looking at it through Japanese-tinted spectacles. That last sentence is NOT intended to be dismissive or patronising. I am going to look more closely at the interesting points you made.
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Why do posture verbs refer to states and not movements?

Why does "sitting" refer to the a state of being seated, rather than to moving from the erect to seated position, why does "sitting" refer to "having sat"?

Ok, let me paraphrase the question a little. (correct me if I misinterpret anything).

Why are postures understood as just states and not resultant states?

I think the answer is obvious. Because the perfect tense serves the purpose of the latter. If you say 'I have sat down', you imply that now you're sitting. Why should you have another tense form (present continuous) to indicate the same thing? Language is a very economical coding system.
 

timtak

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Japan
However, I also think that it is possible that you are seeing a problem where none exists, because you are looking at it through Japanese-tinted spectacles.
Hmm....I agree with you in a way. I think that if I had never learnt Japanese, I would not have realised that there is anything strange about English posture verbs. I am not a clever guy. I would not have been able to see the strangeness of my own language had I not learnt another.

But then, learning Japanese I came accross a whole load of verbs that indicate *the result* in the *present continuous*. I thought that Japanese was weird. In Japanese one says (transliterating) "The stone is falling" about a stone that has fallen, that is on the ground. "Nah", I thought, it is not "falling," "it has fallen." "What are you guys on about?" Further, I thought, "in your language there is no simple way of describing the object in motion." There is no easy way of saying that a stone is falling (in motion, descending) in Japanese, without resorting to expressions like "It is in the process of falling." I thought that their language, the Japanese language, was weird and uneconomical one. Why don't they just say that the stone has fallen when it has fallen and that it is falling when it is falling?

((If any Japanese speakers are reading I will admit that the present perfect is unnatural in Japanese, but one could say "Ochite-aru" instead of "Ochite-iru" to describe fallen stones.))

Why are postures understood as just states and not resultant states?
Shouldn't that be the opposite? In English postures are understood as resultant states even in the continuous.What has happened to the transitory state of sitt-ing (being in the process of seating oneself)? Why is it so difficult to refer to this motion?

I think the answer is obvious. Because the perfect tense serves the purpose of the latter. If you say 'I have sat down', you imply that now you're sitting. Why should you have another tense form (present continuous) to indicate the same thing? Language is a very economical coding system.

You seem to be saying exactly what I would like to say but drawing the opposite conclusion!

"Language is economical. "(I agree, or at least I think it usually is economical)

"Why should you have another tense form (present continuous) to indicate the same thing? " (I agree entirely!!)

And yet, in English, the two tense forms
I have sat down
means the same thing as
I am sitting
Why so uneconomical? Why so wasteful? They could mean different things.

This is weird! The English verbs could, theoretically, be economical so that
I have sat down
does not mean
I am sitting
since the latter could mean, though it does not, that I am in the process of moving from the erect to the seated posture.

And just as I "complained" about Japanese...

In Japanese there is no easy way of describing the process of falling, because the Japanese present continuous of "falling" refers to the result.

Similarly in English there is not easy way of saying the process "sitting" (of taking a seat, of being in motion between standing and the seated posture) because "sitting" refers to the result.

We have in English at least, a perfectly good tense for describing a seated person: the present perfect, "He has sat."

But for some reason unknown to me, we English speakers waste a perfectly good way of describing the downward motion (he is sitting) allowing "he is sitting" to mean the same thing as "he has sat." What a waste!

Why are we so uneconomical?

"He is sitting" could, in theorey, refer to the transition (he is in the process of sitting, bending his knees), and "he has sat" to the state of being seated.

So, in both Japanese and English there are groups of verbs that refer to actions that are difficult to descirbe in the transitional phase.

People and things are often in the process of (1) falling, (2) sitting and standing.

But in Japanese both (1) and (2) are difficult to say, and in English (2) is difficult say, without using "He is in the process of"

Why? Why is there this lack of economy? Why are certain transitional states so difficult to say?
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
And yet, in English ...
I have sat down
means the same thing as
I am sitting

No, no, no. The two do not 'mean the same thing'.

The first may be loosely paraphrased as: I have completed the process of seating myself,
The second as: I am in what may be described as a 'sitting' rather than 'lying or 'standing' position.

And, in another context, the second could be loosely paraphrased as: I am lowering my buttocks towards the chair with the aim of resting them there.

It is true that when we see a person with his buttocks on the seat of a chair and his feet touching the ground we may choose to say, "he has sat (down)" or "he is sitting down", but we are describing the situation from a different point of view.

I think that part of the problem may be that you take two different ways of describing a situation as meaning exactly the same thing.

Let's take a completely different example to reinforce my point:

1. John punched Jack.
2. Jack was punched by Jack
.

With no further context, co-text or evidence of stress, intonation, etc, we can say that these two sentences describe the same situation, but we cannot say that they 'mean the same thing'.
#1 focuses on the fact that John performed an action with his fist.
#2 focuses on the fact that Jack received a blow delivered with a fist.
 

timtak

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Japan
I think that part of the problem may be that you take two different ways of describing a situation as meaning exactly the same thing.

Sure, I would not say that there is absolutely no difference between He has sat and he is sitting. However, the difference in other verbs far greater than in the case of posture verbs, making posture verbs different from other verbs.

Consider the following list

He has eaten he is eating
He has taken he is taking
He has thrown he is throwing
He has sat he is sitting

In the first three pairs, the present perfect refers to the result of the action, and the present continuous refers to the motion which is the action in progress. In the last pair, both the present perfect and the present continuous refer, in the vast majority of cases, to the result, or at least not to a motion.

Now as you point out if "sitting" meant or
could be loosely paraphrased as: I am lowering my buttocks towards the chair with the aim of resting them there.
then there would be no issue.

But that is not what sitting means. In 99 cases out of a 100, "he is sitting" ("he is leaning" "he is standing") do not refer to lowering or otherwise moving ones body to a position, but rather being still in that position.

Why is it that in the case of posture verbs, unlike in other verbs, it is correct to describe the unmoving resultant state by the present continuous? eating, throwing, taking, picking, singing, typing all refer to people in motion, and their present perfect forms a very different meaning to their present continuous forms.

Posture verbs are different.

Wherein does the difference lie?
Reflexivity (the obejct is the subject)?
Brevity (the motion in sitting typically takes a lot less time than the duration for which the subject remains seated)?
Lack or presence of intentionality in post movement phase (after a ball is thrown, the trower does not need to expend any mental energy, but after someone has seated themselves, they must continue to put effort into remaining seated lest they slouch and fall from their chair)?
Simple interest: posture verbs refer to the postures that people have taken and not to their movement into those postures.

"The linguistics of sitting, standing and lying" By John Newman looks like a good place to start. He mentions
a We enter the state of sitting through a conscious, controlled act on our part.
b The act of sitting is done with the express intention of maintaining a state of sitting.
c The act of sitting is relatively brief.
d the state of sitting is relatively long compared with the act of sitting.
The google books version does not show enough of the book but fortunately it is in our library.

Tim
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I shall have to leave this discussion, not from boredom or frustration, but simply because I have nothing else to offer. I have to confess that, until you started it, I had never even thought of posture verbs as being significantly different from other verbs in English.

I shall now have to go away and read up on this. Thank you for raising an interesting topic.
 

timtak

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
Japan
Me too. From what I can see from Google books, the above tome seems to be saying that there are a range of verbs from those that have a clear distinction between perfect and continuous, to those (such as resmble) which contain a continous, time enduring aspect within their meaning and do not even take a continuous. Posture verbs are not so special, but they do seem to be treated as a class with a degree of family resemblance and distinctiveness.
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
"I have sat down" and "I am sitting" are two different ways of looking at the same situation. The denotation is the same but the conceptualizing fashions are different. When you say "I have sat down" you grammatically express that the resultant posture is the consequence of that action. When you say "I am sitting" there is no grammatical expression of the action that has resulted in this posture. The implication of such is purely pragmatic: from your life experience you know that in order to find yourself in a sitting position you need to sit down. I believe if we separate the pragmatical aspect of meaning from the conceptual one we'll see light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top