when to use stative verbs in continuous

[Vladv1]

Dear native speakers, I know that some English verbs have stative and non-stative meanings, that is, the same verb can have two meanings- a stative and a non-stative one like "to see", but there are verbs that are always stative (know, remember), yet natives often use them in continuous forms. When do you usually do that? What is the point of doing that?

 

[5jj]

there are verbs that are always stative (know, remember), yet natives often use them in continuous forms.

Have you examples of these verbs used in continuous form by native speakers?

 

[emsr2d2]

Dear native speakers,

There's no need to open your posts as if you were writing a letter. Also, if you feel you must mention someone's native language, you need to specify which language! Your current opening is addressed to every single member of this forum because we're all native speakers of something. If you mean "native English speakers", that's what you should say.

 

[embertmorton200]

The question about verbs like know or remember being used in continuous forms comes up often, and I understand why it feels confusing. I hear these forms mostly when speakers want to sound informal or express a temporary, evolving state. I usually take it as emphasis rather than strict grammar. Some uses seem playful or emotional, so the meaning becomes more about tone than rules.

 

[5jj]

We'd still like some examples of these verbs used in continuous form by native speakers.

 

[GrammarScheff]

Dear native speakers, I know that some English verbs have stative and non-stative meanings, that is, the same verb can have two meanings- a stative and a non-stative one like "to see", but there are verbs that are always stative (know, remember), yet natives often use them in continuous forms. When do you usually do that? What is the point of doing that?

Here are some examples of stative verbs used in continuous tenses from Friends TV series:

 

[Annabel Lee]

. . . there are verbs that are always stative (know, remember), yet natives often use them in continuous forms.

Know is the best example I know of of a verb that is never used in the continuous. Years ago I Googled it, to see if there were any exceptions. I only found one. It was in a rap song, and the usage struck me as ungrammatical. What makes you say "natives" often use know in the continuous? Be careful with a sentence like I wondered why he wasn't there, knowing how much he had wanted to come. Though it has the present participle knowing, it does not contain the continuous.

 

[Vladv1]

Know is the best example I know of of a verb that is never used in the continuous. Years ago I Googled it, to see if there were any exceptions. I only found one. It was in a rap song, and the usage struck me as ungrammatical. What makes you say "natives" often use know in the continuous? Be careful with a sentence like I wondered why he wasn't there, knowing how much he had wanted to come. Though it has the present participle knowing, it does not contain the continuous.

What about the example "I am knowing grammar better and better"?

 

[jutfrank]

What about the example "I am knowing grammar better and better"?

This is a fairly good example in my view of a sentence that shows how stative verbs do not work with continuous aspect. For that reason, it sounds to me like the kind of thing an English teacher might tell you not to say.

 

[SoothingDave]

How about "knowing what I know now, I would have chosen differently"?

 

[5jj]

How about "knowing what I know now, I would have chosen differently"?

That is an -ing form without part of BE. It is not a continuous aspect form. See post #7.

 

[Annabel Lee]

What about the example "I am knowing grammar better and better"?

The sentence doesn't work with "knowing" at all, but it would with "understanding":

I am understanding grammar better and better.​

​

As to why there seems to be this difference between understand and know, I'd have to give the matter some thought.

 

[jutfrank]

As to why there seems to be this difference between understand and know, I'd have to give the matter some thought.

Here's my answer: Because the speaker appears to be trying to use 'know' in a stative sense, and stative verbs don't work in continuous tenses, whereas 'understanding' is not stative, but rather denotes an ongoing process, which is essentially activity. One may argue here about terminology, and ontology, and whether best to call it an action or an event, but still there is something 'going on'. For the purposes of giving explanantions to students, I personally have little to no problem calling this mental activity.

It's a bold view I know, but for me, there are no cases where stative verbs are used with continuous aspect, by definition. If a verb is continuous, it's active (or eventive) but not stative. In my opinion, it's a common misconception that in such a sentence as I'm loving your new hairdo, the verb 'love' is stative: it isn't, and I don't believe it makes sense to say it is.

 

[Vladv1]

Here's my answer: Because the speaker appears to be trying to use 'know' in a stative sense, and stative verbs don't work in continuous tenses, whereas 'understanding' is not stative, but rather denotes an ongoing process, which is essentially activity. One may argue here about terminology, and ontology, and whether best to call it an action or an event, but still there is something 'going on'. For the purposes of giving explanantions to students, I personally have little to no problem with calling this a mental action.

It's a bold view I know, but for me, there are no cases where stative verbs are used with continuous aspect, by definition. If a verb is continuous, it's active (or eventive) but not stative. In my opinion, it's a common misconception that in such a sentence as I'm loving your new hairdo, the verb 'love' is stative: it isn't, and it doesn't make sense to say it is.

What verbs would you call PURELY STATIVE other than "to know"?

 

[jutfrank]

What verbs would you call PURELY STATIVE other than "to know"?

I currently don't think it's very helpful or insightful to say that verbs are 'purely' or 'partially' stative, though I am liable to change my mind, as I have before.

For me, stative verbs are only those verbs that are used in real language in use to express a state, and none others. I think it's a basic mistake to attempt to make a list of stative verbs, as if it constitutes an independent semantic class. All you can do with such a label as 'stative verb' is describe what a particular speaker means by using a particular verb in a particular utterance in a particular context.

 

[Annabel Lee]

What verbs would you call PURELY STATIVE other than "to know"?

Well, I don't know of any dynamic uses of the verb belong, so I would call it "purely stative" in that sense.

*How long has the ring been belonging to you?

Incidentally, know used to have a dynamic usage ("biblical know"). A person was not to "know someone" before marrying them.

 

[5jj]

Know is the best example I know of of a verb that is never used in the continuous.

i would have agreed once, but I recently came across Jana Dráčková's MA thesis (pps 52-56). She found eleven examples of KNOW used in the progressive form. I don't like any of them, but they come from the British National Corpus.

 

[emsr2d2]

i would have agreed once, but I recently came across Jana Dráčková's MA thesis (pps 52-56). Shes found eleven examples of KNOW used in the progressive form. I don't like any of them, but they come from the British National Corpus.

I didn't have time to check the source for each one but, given the names in the contexts, I'd say the majority of them come from Indian English and Irish English. Native Indian English speakers commonly use almost every verb in the progressive, and the later example ("Jesus, Mr Higgins, and how would I be knowing such a desperate fella as that?") would have sounded very natural from my late Irish grandfather, especially if the first word were pronounced "Jaysus"!

 

[jutfrank]

I think emsr2d2 is quite right. The author of the paper has misunderstood her own examples. I would bet good money that at least two of them (the first one for sure, and also the one about Mr Aggarwal) were written precisely in order to sound characteristic of Indian English, or in other words to sound unnatural! I'd be quite distrustful of the other ones too without being able to hear them. If the goal of the research was to classify usage so specifically, then there should have been a lot more examples, and they really should have been spoken, and contextualised.