The problem of the Stative

mong the words signifying properties of a noun there is a lexemic set

which claims to be recognised as a separate part of speech as different from the
adjectives (the words built up by the prefix a- and denoting different states, mostly
of temporary duration: afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze).
In traditional grammar these words were generally considered under the
heading of predicative adjectives.
Notional words signifying states and specifically used as predicatives were
first identified as a separate part of speech in the Russian language by L. V.
Shcherba and V. V. Vinogradov. The two scholars called the newly identified part
of speech the category of state (and, correspondingly, words of the category of
state: , , , , , , etc.). Traditionally the
Russian words of the category of state were considered to belong to the class of
adverbs, and they are still considered as such by many Russian scholars.
On the analogy of the Russian category of state, the English qualifying awords were given the part-of-speech heading category of state (B. A. Ilyish) and
the term used for words constituting this category was later changed into stative
words/statives.
The part-of-speech interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists
working in the domain of English. Usual arguments given pro separating them into
a part of speech are as follows (B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya: 1) the
statives (ad-links) are opposed to adjectives on a purely semantic basis (adjectives
denote qualities, and statives-adlinks denote states); 2) statives-adlinks are
characterised by the specific prefix a-; 3) they do not possess the category of the
degrees of comparison; 4) they are not used in the pre-positional attributive
function,

This view of the stative was not supported by any special analysis and
formed on the grounds of mere surface analogies and outer correlations. The later
semantic and functional study of statives (their inner properties, historical
productivity, systemic description) showed that statives, though forming a unified
set of words, do not constitute a separate lexemic class existing in language on
exactly the same footing as the noun, the verb, the adjective, the adverb. It should
be looked upon as a subclass within the general class of adjectives since statives
are not directly opposed to the notional parts of speech taken together, but are quite
particularly opposed to the rest of adjectives.
Therefore the general subcategorisation of the class of adjectives is effected
on the two levels:
1) on the upper level the class is divided into the subclass of stative
adjectives and common adjectives;
2) on the lower level the common adjectives fall into qualitative and relative.

Dynamic and stative adjectives

Adjectives (like verbs) may be further classified as either dynamic or stative
Dynamic adjectives
Dynamic adjectives signify attributes or characteristics that can usually be
controlled by the person/animal/etc possessing them. So, for example, I
can actively choose to be careful, rude, or quiet (but probably not choose to
be white, tall or rotund). Since such dynamic attributes can be directed as
necessary, they can be used in imperative structures, e.g.
Be careful!
Dont be rude!

Be quiet!
In addition, according to the rules of English syntax, dynamic adjectives
can be inserted into a be + -ingstructure, e.g.
She is being careful.
The doctor was being rude.
Are they being quiet?
Stative adjectives
Stative adjectives denote relatively permanent states, e.g. white, tall,
rotund. Because these states are fairly fixed, they typically cannot be
controlled. Hence, they cannot usually be used in imperative structures,
e.g.
* Be white!
* Dont be tall!
* Be rotund!
Additionally, unlike dynamic adjectives, they cannot be used in be +
-ing structures, e.g.
* She is being white.
* The doctor was being tall.
* Are they being rotund?
Whereas the majority of lexical verbs are dynamic, the majority of
adjectives are stative.