[Grammar] Progressive tense and stative verbs

[toloue_man]

Hi!

When I was studying present progressive tense, it was mentioned in my grammar book that some verbs called stative verbs cannot be used with present progressive. Now, I would like to know that is this rule true for the other progressive tenses such as past progressive, present perfect progressive, past perfect progressive, future progressive and future perfect progressive?

To put it in a nutshell, is the aforementioned rule true for all the progressive tenses or it is only true for present progressive?

 

[Tdol]

I think your grammar book is overstating things when it says that stative verbs cannot be used in the present progressive- we generally use the present simple, but you will find examples where we use progressive forms. It's not so much a rule as a tendency. I would recommend not using a progressive form (past, present, etc) unless you have a good reason for doing so, but there's no absolute prohibition.

 

[Raymott]

It's a beginner's rule. There are no progressive tenses and no stative verbs for which it actually applies in terms of how natives actually speak.

 

[engee30]

To me personally, it's wrong to say that there are dynamic and stative verbs in the first place. It's context that determines whether a verb is used in the dynamic or stative sense, not the other way round. That could lead to less confusion, I guess.

 

[toloue_man]

I think your grammar book is overstating things when it says that stative verbs cannot be used in the present progressive- we generally use the present simple, but you will find examples where we use progressive forms. It's not so much a rule as a tendency. I would recommend not using a progressive form (past, present, etc) unless you have a good reason for doing so, but there's no absolute prohibition.

Somewhere in the book, the author mentions examples that we can use stative verbs with progressive forms. She mentions that we can use stative verbs with progressive forms. In these cases, the progressive verb conveys a temporary activity or the progressive verb has another meaning compared to its non-progressive form. However, generally speaking is the same rule applied to the other progressive tenses such as past progressive, present perfect progressive, past perfect progressive, future progressive and future perfect progressive?

 

[toloue_man]

To me personally, it's wrong to say that there are dynamic and stative verbs in the first place. It's context that determines whether a verb is used in the dynamic or stative sense, not the other way round. That could lead to less confusion, I guess.

Do you mean "it is NOT wrong to say ...."

 

[5jj]

However, generally speaking is the same rule applied to the other progressive tenses such as past progressive, present perfect progressive, past perfect progressive, future progressive and future perfect progressive?

There are certain verbs that are highly unlikely to be used in some progressive forms. For example, I cannot, at the moment, think of a convincing context for "I have been loving ...". However, as others have suggested, there is no absolute rule about so-called stative verbs and the progressive.

 

[5jj]

Do you mean "it is NOT wrong to say ...."

I imagine that engee meant what he wrote. I agree with him. For me, there is no such thing as a stative verb.

 

[MikeNewYork]

There are certain verbs that are highly unlikely to be used in some progressive forms. For example, I cannot, at the moment, think of a convincing context for "I have been loving ...". However, as others have suggested, there is no absolute rule about so-called stative verbs and the progressive.

McDonald's started a bit of a revolution with its "I'm lovin it" advertising campaign. I suppose it won't be too long before we hear "I've been lovin' it for 10 years".

 

[toloue_man]

There are certain verbs that are highly unlikely to be used in some progressive forms. For example, I cannot, at the moment, think of a convincing context for "I have been loving ...". However, as others have suggested, there is no absolute rule about so-called stative verbs and the progressive.

Let me give a relative definition based on our discussion. Not all stative verbs can be used with progressive forms such as "love" but some of them can be used with all progressive forms. If a stative verb is used with any progressive forms, the verb conveys a temporary activity such as "He is seeing things more clearly with his new glasses" or the progressive verb has another meaning compared to its non-progressive form such as "He is considering to enter university" vs "He considers this university to be a good one."

Do you agree with my definition? I think it is as comprehensive as possibe.

 

[engee30]

Do you mean "it is NOT wrong to say ...."

No. I mean that there shouldn't be such a system of classification of verbs. I myself used to teach. I still remember things like this happening to me - at one point, I was saying one thing, like 'you cannot use the verb in progressive tenses because the verb is stative'; and later at some other point, I was saying another thing which, in fact, contradicted to what I had previously said about stative and dynamic verbs. So it is always an awkward situation for a tutor to do a lot of explaining to his or her pupil(s) about the one same thing. Meaning is key. And if I ever get myself back into teaching, I'll stick to this rule that there is no such thing as stative or dynamic verb, only the meaning and context it is used in.

 

[toloue_man]

McDonald's started a bit of a revolution with its "I'm lovin it" advertising campaign. I suppose it won't be too long before we hear "I've been lovin' it for 10 years".

Interesting point!! We are frequently told by our professors in Iran that the word "handsome" is ONLY used with male subjects and the word "beautiful" is ONLY used with female subjects. Once, I told a professor of mine that this rule is not correct because we hear in Hotel Califonia song that: "She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys she calls friends"

 

[engee30]

That's another example of artificial rule, created, I feel, for educational purposes only. Life will usually verify such a rule and eventually prove it wrong.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Interesting point!! We are frequently told by our professors in Iran that the word "handsome" is ONLY used with male subjects and the word "beautiful" is ONLY used with female subjects. Once, I told a professor of mine that this rule is not correct because we hear in Hotel Califonia song that: "She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys she calls friends"

"Handsome woman" and "beautiful man" are both used, but less frequently than the reversed phrases. Notice the changes in 1900 and 1980.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/gra...t1;,handsome woman;,c0;.t1;,beautiful man;,c0

 

[Raymott]

There are certain verbs that are highly unlikely to be used in some progressive forms. For example, I cannot, at the moment, think of a convincing context for "I have been loving ...". However, as others have suggested, there is no absolute rule about so-called stative verbs and the progressive.

Harry: "Are you starting to enjoy our little social club?"
Mary: "I have been loving it ever since I joined!"

"I've been loving every moment of my holidays."

Charlene to Charles: "Do you know, tomorrow is our 2nd anniversary? I will have been loving you as an honest woman for two years!"

Sure, some of these forms occur at a low frequency. And some might sound contrived - because they are. People contrive sentences, and in the above examples, they've been contrived grammatically.

 

[panglossa]

It's largely a matter of definitions. Some would take the view that, when the verb 'love' is used in the progressive form (a la Macdonald's), a stative verb (i.e. a verb that typically does not have progressive tense forms) is being used dynamically (i.e. like one that typically does).

Others, however, define 'stative' more strictly as meaning specifically 'not possessing progressive tense-forms', and maintain therefore that the same lexical verb (love) simply possesses both a stative and a dynamic form, and that it is the latter that is being used.

 

[MikeNewYork]

It's largely a matter of definitions. Some would take the view that, when the verb 'love' is used in the progressive form (a la Macdonald's), a stative verb (i.e. a verb that typically does not have progressive tense forms) is being used dynamically (i.e. like one that typically does).

Others, however, define 'stative' more strictly as meaning specifically 'not possessing progressive tense-forms', and maintain therefore that the same lexical verb (love) simply possesses both a stative and a dynamic form, and that it is the latter that is being used.

The point is that verbs themselves don't determine whether they are stative or dynamic. It is the use of those verbs that determines the status.

 

[5jj]

Harry: "Are you starting to enjoy our little social club?"
Mary: "I have been loving it ever since I joined!"

"I've been loving every moment of my holidays."

Charlene to Charles: "Do you know, tomorrow is our 2nd anniversary? I will have been loving you as an honest woman for two years!"

Sure, some of these forms occur at a low frequency. And some might sound contrived - because they are. People contrive sentences, and in the above examples, they've been contrived grammatically.

:up: I wondered who would take up my implied challenge. You may have contrived them but, if I heard them in normal conversation, they would sound natural enough.

 

[5jj]

McDonald's started a bit of a revolution with its "I'm lovin it" advertising campaign.

I don’t really think the burger boys started a revolution. They upset a lot of (mainly inexperienced) teachers of EFL, who had bee teaching that ‘love’ was an exclusively stative verb, not realising that the progressive form was normal and natural.

It's largely a matter of definitions. Some would take the view that, when the verb 'love' is used in the progressive form ([FONT=&quot]a la[/FONT] Macdonald's), a stative verb (i.e. a verb that [FONT=&quot]typically[/FONT] does not have progressive tense forms) is being used dynamically (i.e. like one that typically does).

Others, however, define 'stative' more strictly as meaning specifically 'not possessing progressive tense-forms', and maintain therefore that the same lexical verb (love) simply possesses [FONT=&quot]both[/FONT] a stative [FONT=&quot]and[/FONT] a dynamic form, and that it is the latter that is being used.

Which rather suggests that the whole idea of ‘stative vs dynamic verbs’ is unhelpful. As others have suggested, it may be useful to think of verbs being used statively/dynamically, but that’s all.

 

[Tdol]

That's another example of artificial rule, created, I feel, for educational purposes only. Life will usually verify such a rule and eventually prove it wrong.

You can add countable/uncountable nouns to the list- they can display countability or uncountability and this can change in context, rather than being a fixed characteristic.