action vs. stative verbs

The more I think about it, the more I think I should never have started the Substack section on verbs with Action and Stative Verbs. The distinction between these verbs is subtle and often lawyerly, and I can't say that, even with the several definitions/parameters I've seen, a truly clear and satisfying explanation of these verb categories exists. Here's how I concluded my lesson on the topic (in a rare display of paid content on a free format like my blog!), with some recent rewriting:

NB: Although it might seem like a stative verb because it denotes moving from one state (life) to another (death), perish is actually a dynamic verb because of that very process of physical transitioning. So remember that fact for perish and all of its cousins: die, croak, buy the farm, cark it, check out, bite the big one, etc. But don’t lean too hard on that logic: some such verbs are stative, but when they denote a transition from one state to another, the verbs could be active. Even this logic, though, can be problematic: agree is a stative verb, but your mind is moving from a neutral or negative state to a state of being actively in accord with someone’s claim or opinion, so wouldn’t that transition make agree an action verb? It’s a philosophical can of worms. So there are plenty of edge cases where you may have to use your discretion in determining if a verb is active/dynamic or not. It may be better to think of action verbs as more external/empirical (“Can people see me doing it?”) while stative verbs are more internal. But again, even this guideline should be taken with a grain of salt. Edge cases.

Because the line between action and stative is often blurred, especially when talking about cognition, I would recommend not worrying too much about the distinction in cognitional contexts. I found an online example of how to think can be either dynamic or stative. Look at this:

I think that’s a good idea. (stative: just holding an opinion)
She is thinking about her next holiday. (action: actively contemplating)

Note as well that, in example (2) above, the verb is in the present progressive, which is usually reserved for action verbs, so that’s a hint for you. Still, all of this is a subtle, lawyerly distinction, and whether you go to heaven or hell probably won’t depend on your ability to tell action from stative verbs. So as I wrote above, don’t worry too much about this particular distinction except when it’s clear (eat vs. know, for example).

I give up. And if I were teaching this to a class, I doubt I'd test the class on the distinction.

Some of the ways that action verbs and stative verbs are distinguished from each other:

1. physical/objective vs. mental/subjective—Action verbs supposedly deal mostly with dynamic physical transitions while stative verbs deal mostly with subjective mental states (or physical qualities).

2. static nature of the state—It's often said that, with stative verbs, the state is unlikely to change, which is one clue that it's stative. Example: I know you're a virgin. The knowing isn't likely to change until the objective facts get updated.

3. progressive tense—Stative verbs supposedly don't get expressed in progressive tenses. We say, for example, that We understand, not We are understanding. Or we say We agree, not We are agreeing. Or we say The human body consists of a collection of cells, not The human body is consisting of a collection of cells.

But...

Rebuttal to (1): See my agree example above. To agree is to move from a neutral or negative mental state to one that is in accord. So why is agree often listed as a stative verb? Think about the verb to die: this, too, is a transition from a state of living to a state of being dead. By this standard, to die is considered an action (dynamic) verb. Whether your mental state is also physical (electrochemical) depends on your personal philosophy of mind. So whether agree is an action verb or a stative verb may depend on what you think consciousness is!

Rebuttal to (2): Again using agree: Has there not been a change in one's mental state? And how necessarily permanent is an agreement? I frequent a certain restaurant because I like the food, the ambiance, and the service, so I agree to patronize the place. But when there's a sudden drop in the place's quality, I'd say the agreement no longer stands: I no longer agree to frequent that place. So what is fundamentally static or permanent about the mental state of agreement? This standard strikes me as shaky at best.

Rebuttal to (3): As I mention in my lesson, it's possible to say I am understanding in Indian English. But you don't even need to reach as far as India to find counterexamples to this supposed "rule/criterion." In US English, for example, you can imagine a situation in which a father is yelling at his son about some point, but the son had sullenly come around to the father's point of view five minutes ago. Still, the oblivious father keeps yelling, and his wife finally storms in and shouts at her husband, "You idiot! Can't you see that he's agreeing with you?" That strikes me as a perfectly natural example of using the progressive tense with what is supposedly a stative verb.

Basically, I apologize to the two or three people following (or, really, not following) my paid curriculum on Substack. Forcing you to go through the action/stative distinction—especially as the very first unit on verbs—probably caused you nothing but headaches. It's still causing me headaches.

So my challenge to my readers is to find an airtight definitional distinction between action verbs and stative verbs for which there are no possible counterexamples. Can you do it?