Mental and Physical Action Verbs

[MoonRivers]

Hi, I'm an English teacher, and I'm attempting to explain the difference between mental and physical action verbs to my students. The problem I've run into, however, is that the line between what constitutes a mental or physical action verb can be blurry at times. For example, the book I'm using to teach refers to the verb "earned" as a physical action verb, when earning could be understood as more of a concept than an actual physical action. Another example is "breaking" a world record; does anyone actually break anything? So, is it more of a concept, again, or an actual, physical action? If it's said to be a physical action, then shouldn't it be rephrased appropriately with context where actual "breaking" takes place?

My hypothesis here is that the attempt to strictly categorize verbs as strictly mental or physical is flawed to a certain degree; some verbs simply are ambiguous to interpretation. If I said that I promised you something, that's technically a physical action with mental functions. Now, if I promised myself something, there's not much room to escape the mental aspect of the verb, unless the sentence is interpreted as the person saying to themselves that they promise something.

At the end of the day, murky concept or not, my students expect me to know how to explain this, so what should I do? I tried explaining the ambiguity concept to them, but perhaps that's too advanced for them to understand.

 

[Tdol]

Is it honestly a categorisation that is essential to learning?

 

[jutfrank]

It is a disastrous idea to try to force all verbs into the categories of physical and mental.

If you do want to usefully categorise verbs, then you will need many more categories. Some of these categories may be of some use pedagogically speaking, but this seems to me an ultimately fruitless task, given what I assume are your teaching aims.

earn cannot be considered as a physical action.
break a world record cannot be considered as a physical action.
promise cannot be considered as a physical action, but interestingly can be considered as a member of the set of verbs used to perform speech acts.

 

[MoonRivers]

It is a disastrous idea to try to force all verbs into the categories of physical and mental.

If you do want to usefully categorise verbs, then you will need many more categories. Some of these categories may be of some use pedagogically speaking, but this seems to me an ultimately fruitless task, given what I assume are your teaching aims.

earn cannot be considered as a physical action.
break a world record cannot be considered as a physical action.
promise cannot be considered as a physical action, but interestingly can be considered as a member of the set of verbs used to perform speech acts.

Does this mean that I am correct with how I've explained the flaw of the categories? The ambiguity concept did not sit well with them because they are accustomed to prescribed grammar. They even brought up the possibility of asking my supervisor, instead. As we all know, us teachers can be prone to saving face, so if someone tells them I'm wrong, simply because they do not know the real answer but want to avoid embarrassment, I want to be able to stand my ground. That's why I'm asking. Thanks!

 

[MoonRivers]

Is it honestly a categorisation that is essential to learning?

I don't believe it is, yet I'm still obligated to teach it, as I have to go by the book. So, my only option is to tell them that I will not lower their grade for any possible ambiguous questions on the test. I tried doing so, but they suggested that they should speak with my supervisor, as she knows "the most" about English and would be able to tell them which verbs are physical or mental. I'm confident enough to stand my ground as is, but other teachers agreeing with me would certainly provide a boost.

I plan on telling them that this section of the book clearly attempts to prescribe grammar, instead of recognizing the ambiguities of verbs.

 

[jutfrank]

Does this mean that I am correct with how I've explained the flaw of the categories?

Personally, I don't think you've explained it well, no. Strictly speaking, there's no one correct way of understanding this so I can only give you my view of things. To avoid going too deep, I'll just make a few comments about what you've said.

the line between what constitutes a mental or physical action verb can be blurry at times.

Well, yes. But it doesn't have to be. You can draw the line as clearly as you like. Your supervisor has apparently drawn it clearly in her mind. The problem is that your line doesn't match hers. The world and the things in it have no borders. The line is drawn in your mind only. The more you understand something, the clearer the line is in your mind. However, there shouldn't be a line here in the first place.

For example, the book I'm using to teach refers to the verb "earned" as a physical action verb, when earning could be understood as more of a concept than an actual physical action.

Anyone who knows the normal use of the word earn knows that it does not describe a physical action. You describe it as a concept? Okay, but what does that mean? What makes something a concept (or not)?

Another example is "breaking" a world record; does anyone actually break anything?

Yes, they break a world record! But of course a world record is not a physical thing.

So, is it more of a concept, again, or an actual, physical action?

Again, call it a concept if you like but how does that help? In order to break a world record, somebody must do something, so yes, breaking a record involves doing something physical (running, juggling, whatever) but when we use the verb break a world record, we're not exactly referring to those actions, we're referring to a special way that those actions relate/compare to other similar, precursive actions. Usain Bolt's time of 9.58 is only a record in relation to every other time run.

If it's said to be a physical action, then shouldn't it be rephrased appropriately with context where actual "breaking" takes place?

I don't know what you mean here.

My hypothesis here is that the attempt to strictly categorize verbs as strictly mental or physical is flawed to a certain degree;

My opinion is that it's flawed to an extreme degree. So much as to be completely useless philosophically, and really quite ridiculous and counterproductive even, pedagogically.

If I said that I promised you something, that's technically a physical action with mental functions.

It's not physical, no. It's the moving of the tongue that's a physical action. Whether it has 'mental functions' depends on what you mean by that. In speech-act theory, promise can be usefully considered a performative verb.

I plan on telling them that this section of the book clearly attempts to prescribe grammar, instead of recognizing the ambiguities of verbs.

Be careful you don't confuse grammar with semantics. Grammar is really about structure whereas semantics is about meaning, as we're discussing here. I also don't think that verbs are ambiguous. For me, that's not the right word. The issue here is not one of ambiguity, it's one of classification.

So in summary, your suspicion that their attempt at such a crude classification doesn't make sense is well-justified. The problem now is how to articulate this to them. I suggest you give it some careful consideration before you try.

 

[MoonRivers]

In that breaking a record, earning something and promising something are things that can be observed by one or more of the five senses they are concrete/'physical' in a way that 'mental' activities such as thinking, believing or hoping, or states such as being are not.

I, personally, see no value in exercises requiring learners to label verbs in this way. However if you are obliged to do this, then I do not see many (if any) cases in which there is ambiguity.

In my opinion, I don't believe that the concept (idea) of breaking a world record, which is all the sentence actually provides, constitutes a physical action. Sure, you may be able to view whichever act has led to a world record, but that act isn't actually included in the sentence. Similarly, earning something may result from an act, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will. What if a racist believes that a Black person has "earned" hatred because of their skin color? Having a skin color isn't a physical action anyone takes. This may be applied to the "breaking" example as well, for one could possibly think of world records that require no physical action on part of the person referred to. Even if you were to believe that such scenarios are "reaching," that would not change the lack of an actual physical action in the sentence.

 

[Raymott]

I don't think it's a matter of ambiguity. A verb can be used in many different ways. If a scenario is "reaching", is that a physical action verb? Well, it's an adjective. However, if you are "reaching" with an example, is that a physical action verb?
I think the exercise is nonsense.

 

[MoonRivers]

Personally, I don't think you've explained it well, no. Strictly speaking, there's no one correct way of understanding this so I can only give you my view of things. To avoid going too deep, I'll just make a few comments about what you've said.


Well, yes. But it doesn't have to be. You can draw the line as clearly as you like. Your supervisor has apparently drawn it clearly in her mind. The problem is that your line doesn't match hers. The world and the things in it have no borders. The line is drawn in your mind only. The more you understand something, the clearer the line is in your mind. However, there shouldn't be a line here in the first place.



Anyone who knows the normal use of the word earn knows that it does not describe a physical action. You describe it as a concept? Okay, but what does that mean? What makes something a concept (or not)?



Yes, they break a world record! But of course a world record is not a physical thing.



Again, call it a concept if you like but how does that help? In order to break a world record, somebody must do something, so yes, breaking a record involves doing something physical (running, juggling, whatever) but when we use the verb break a world record, we're not exactly referring to those actions, we're referring to a special way that those actions relate/compare to other similar, precursive actions. Usain Bolt's time of 9.58 is only a record in relation to every other time run.



I don't know what you mean here.



My opinion is that it's flawed to an extreme degree. So much as to be completely useless philosophically, and really quite ridiculous and counterproductive even, pedagogically.



It's not physical, no. It's the moving of the tongue that's a physical action. Whether it has 'mental functions' depends on what you mean by that. In speech-act theory, promise can be usefully considered a performative verb.



Be careful you don't confuse grammar with semantics. Grammar is really about structure whereas semantics is about meaning, as we're discussing here. I also don't think that verbs are ambiguous. For me, that's not the right word. The issue here is not one of ambiguity, it's one of classification.

So in summary, your suspicion that their attempt at such a crude classification doesn't make sense is well-justified. The problem now is how to articulate this to them. I suggest you give it some careful consideration before you try.

Within the context of my post, I used the term concept as referring to an abstract idea. If a person broke a world record, that "idea" is different from the actual physical action possibly required to "break" a world record. As mentioned in a prior post, one could think of world records or things "earned" that require no physical action on part of the person or thing referred to. Moreover, the main flaw is that we are dealing with concepts instead of actual, physical action verbs. If it's not there, then who is to say what that verb was or wasn't?

I haven't spoken with my supervisor about the topic, so I don't know if there is or isn't a line drawn, but, if there is on my supervisor's part, that doesn't change the scenario. I will not prescribe grammar, and when I say grammar I'm including semantics as well. I believe the topic reaches into syntax, at least in terms of analyzing the categorization of word choices.

From what I've seen throughout all the responses in this thread, fellow English teachers disagree on what constitutes physical or mental action verbs, although they all do appear to agree on these being flawed as categories. I will interpret this as meaning that I can stand my ground as to what I've said, whether or not it's in the best possible wording. If we understand ambiguity to signify "a type of uncertainty of meaning in which several interpretations are plausible, and therefore an attribute of any idea or statement whose intended meaning cannot be definitively resolved according to a rule or process with a finite number of steps," then that suits my case very well.

However, I definitely agree on that I need to find a simpler way of getting the message across to my students. On that part, I'm not quite certain because it is apparent that they are accustomed to clearly delineated information, and, again, I refuse to teach something that I believe to be incorrectly substantiated. I, of course, do not have the final say in the universe of the English language, but I should have the final say when it comes to making sure content is substantiated appropriately, in my classroom. If it is not, I have the right to comment on that flaw. This doesn't mean the topic is canceled, but I will instead stick to mental and physical action verbs which can be clearly categorized.

 

[MoonRivers]

I don't think it's a matter of ambiguity. A verb can be used in many different ways. If a scenario is "reaching", is that a physical action verb? Well, it's an adjective. However, if you are "reaching" with an example, is that a physical action verb?
I think the exercise is nonsense.

If some verbs can be interpreted in a variety of ways, aren't they ambiguous, then? By ambiguous I do not mean that they are impossible to understand; I'm not going that far. What I'm referring to is that they could be interpreted in different ways, even within a single sentence.

I feel a bit frustrated that the book led me into the trap of attempting to teach this its way in the first place; that probably added to the doubt once the students saw me backtracking as I realized the flaws of the categories. While I have no choice but to teach the book, I will look for possible flaws in the future, and try to make sure I'm ready for them.

 

[Raymott]

Yes, you could call it ambiguous if that's the easiest way to describe it to your students. Many single English words are ambiguous if simply presented without a context, I think - apart from function words such as 'I', 'with', etc. We use the same words as verbs and nouns and adjectives, etc.

We occasionally get teachers here who are unhappy with having to teach things that are designed for a certain level, but which aren't necessarily true in proper English as it's used.

 

[jutfrank]

I should have the final say when it comes to making sure content is substantiated appropriately, in my classroom. If it is not, I have the right to comment on that flaw. This doesn't mean the topic is canceled, but I will instead stick to mental and physical action verbs which can be clearly categorized.

Yes. Good for you. Stick by your guns.

 

[MoonRivers]

Thanks, guys! There are many rules in the English language that have exceptions, and, as teachers, that's something we have to look out for. As frustrated as I may be with the book, it's my fault for not seeing it coming. I'm starting to understand why certain teachers insist on supposedly knowing things that are unknowable; students can be harsh whenever they see weakness on part of a teacher, especially if they're the "smartypants" type that gets a kick out of feeling like they're pointing out a teacher's errors.

Either way, respected or not, I'll stick by my analysis of the categories, even if it leads to rumors. They are smart kids, and I saw that their exceptions were correct and began to consider them and agree. If accepting exceptions is a flaw, then that's a flaw I'm happy to have, lol.

 

[jutfrank]

Good teachers often know a lot more about the subject matter than the school directors. I sympathise that you have to teach a book like that.

Be honest with the kids and teach them what you think they should know. If you can make them see what you see, they'll respect you.

 

[Tdol]

There are many rules in the English language that have exceptions, and, as teachers, that's something we have to look out for.

Also, let them know that rules and categorisations are usually not written in stone, but are more like guidelines, signposts and suggestions.

 

[Rover_KE]

Stick by your guns.

I see that expression can be used. I prefer 'Stick to your guns'.

 

[jutfrank]

I see that expression can be used. I prefer 'Stick to your guns'.

I don't know why I wrote by. I also prefer your version.