"unusually aggressively"

Hello MrPedantic. It's one of 'innocent-looking but nasty' problems, for me at least. Interesting.
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈
1. He acts/is acting strangely.
2. He acts/is acting strange.

3. He looks tenderly.
4. He looks tender.
┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈┈
In Montague Grammar the verb〖be〗of identity and all the other copula verbs are regarded as ordinary〖transitive〗(!) verbs, thus they all have the same semantic value:〖a relation between an individual and【a set of first-order properties】〗(roughly, in most typical cases).

On the other, in [1] and [3] the verb 'act' and 'look' with adverb form intransitive verb phrases. Thus they have a completely different semantic value. (To my deep regret I cannot expand on this now. It seems a bit complicated. I'm not sure at all if I will be able to do in the near future. I just wanted to say that this point could be expanded on some logical basis...) (Interesting.)
(Though I cannot explain well, I have a vague impression.....Montague's framework works here, too...! ：）
A million thanks to you. Bye!

What you wrote makes sense. (But I hasten to add: what I wrote above may be somewhat misleading. Transitive and Intransitive verb phrases are considered simply as different functors and ... actually Montague didn't pay much attention to the difference between stative/active, so we have to expand his framework to treat it). I think this note is needless to you, but to make sure.


It seems interesting to me that those 'linking' verbs are, generally speaking, not used in progressive, right?

Nice talking to you. Bye,

The difference between stative and dynamic (called ‘active’ in this thread) verbs does not lie in transitivity (there are transitive stative and dynamic verbs), but in the type of relation in which the verbs stand with respect to the construction/s that follow them.

In sentences such as the following:

1. “Only John knows the answer.”

2. “The man grew tired.”

3. “Susan became a teacher.”

the verbs are stative. Yet, the verb in sentence # 1 is the only one that is transitive (it has a direct object).

 

Dynamic verbs may also be transitive or intransitive:

4. “Anna made her bed.” (T)

5. “The dog barked.” (I)

6a. “The visitor rang the bell.” (T)

6b. “The bell rang.” (I)

It is perhaps interesting to mention, as a side note, that an intransitive verb may have a specific type of object, called “cognate” object, which is more or less implied in the verb itself, as in:

7. “She cried sad tears.”

 

The verbs in sentences #1, #4, #5, #6a and #6b are “extensive” verbs.

Those in sentences #2 and #3 are “intensive”. In other words, they have an intensive relation with the subject. The action or state expressed by the verb does not pass onto an object (from a syntactic point of view). We usually refer to these verbs as linking or copulative.

 

In the two pairs of sentences posted by Roro:

1. He acts/is acting strangely.

2. He acts/is acting strange.

 

3. He looks tenderly.

4. He looks tender.

First of all, none of the verbs in these sentences is used transitively, which shows that we can have both stative and dynamic verbs without a direct object.

Also, we can say #1, #2 and #3 extensive and dynamic verbs (used intransitively).

The verb in #4, however, is neither extensive nor dynamic. “Look” has different meanings in sentences #3 and #4. It is an action in sentence #3 (“tenderly” refers to the verb, to the way in which “he” looks at someone or something), but it is not one in sentence #4. There is no action performed in that sencence. We could have said “he seems tender”, or perhaps “he appears tender”, and “tender” would still be referring to the subject of the sentence, not to the verb. In sentence #3, an action is performed “in a tender way”. In sentence #4, the subject (he) is/looks/seems tender.

In short, we do not have a proportion here. We cannot say that sentence #1 is to #3 as #2 is to #4.

 

I would think that the use of adjectives in the way "strange" is used in sentence #2 is a sort of "(poetic)licence" native speakers of English took, for some reason, some time ago; something that may have been frowned upon, perhaps, at first but which is now becoming -or has already become- accepted. Is this idea wrong?

 

Anyway, I think I have written too much for something that might have been (better) explained in fewer words, but I tend to be long-winded. And I have a headache now, so I am leaving this thread in peace.

 

Miriam

 

(Not that I know anything about Montague grammar.)

Hello Pieanne!

Yes; though I suppose the object is always verging on the cognate.

Also <barked out an order>, etc.

MrP