(though, dialectically, it does signify in this case a lexical evaluation of the pupil's progress). Conversely, the adjective wooden is basically relative, but when used in the broader meaning "expressionless" or "awkward" it acquires an eval-uative force and, consequently, can presuppose a greater or lesser degree ("amount") of the denoted properly in the corresponding referent. E.g.:
Bundle found herself looking into the expressionless, wooden face of Superintendent Battle (A. Christie). The su-perintendent was sitting behind a table and looking more wooden than ever.
The degrees of comparison are essentially evaluative for-mulas, therefore any adjective used in a higher comparison degree (comparative, superlative) is thereby made into an evaluative adjective, if only for the nonce (see the examples above).
Thus, the introduced distinction between the evaluative and specificative uses of adjectives, in the long run, empha-sizes the fact that the morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) is potentially represented in the whole class of adjectives and is constitutive for it.
Among the words signifying properties of a nounal referent there is a lexemic set which claims to be recognized as a separate part of speech, i.e. as a class of words different from the adjectives in its class-forming features. These are words built up by the prefix a- and denoting different states, mostly of temporary duration. Here belong lexemes like afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze. In traditional grammar these words were generally considered under the heading of "pre-dicative adjectives" (some of them also under the heading of adverbs), since their most typical position in the sentence is that of a predicative and they are but occasionally used as pre-positional attributes to nouns.
Category of state
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 iden-tified part of speech the "category of state" (and, correspond-ingly, separate words making up this category, "words of the category of state"). Here belong the Russian words mostly ending in -o, but also having other suffixes: тепло, зябко, одиноко, радостно, жаль, лень, etc. Traditionally the Russian words of the category of state were considered as constituents of (he class of adverbs, and they are still considered as such by many Russian schiolars.
On the analogy of the Russian "category of state", the English qualifying a-words of the corresponding meanings were subjected to a lexico-grammatical analysis and given the part-of-speech heading "category of slate". This analysis was first conducted by B. A. llyish and later continued by other linguists. The term "words of the category of state", being rather cumbersome from the technical point of view, was later changed into "stative words", or "statives".
The part-of-speech interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists working in the domain of English, and has found both its proponents and opponents.
Probably the most consistent and explicit exposition of the part-of-speech interpretation of statives has been given by B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya. Their theses supporting the view in question can be summarized as follows.
First, the statives, called by the quoted authors "adlinks" (by virtue of their connection with link-verbs and on the analogy of the term "adverbs"), are allegedly opposed to adjectives on a purely semantic basis, since adjectives denote "qualities", and statives-adlinks denote "states". Second, as different from adjectives, statives-adlinks are characterized by the specific prefix a-. Third, they allegedly do not possess the category of the degrees of comparison. Fourth, the combinability of statives-adlinks is different from that of adjectives in so far as they are not used in the pre-positional attributive function, i.e. are characterized by the absence of the right-hand combinability with nouns.
The advanced reasons, presupposing many-sided categorial estimation of statives, are undoubtedly serious and worthy of note. Still, a closer consideration of the properties of the analysed lexemic set cannot but show that, on the whole, the said reasons are hardly instrumental in proving the main idea, i.e. in establishing the English stative as a separate part of speech. The re-consideration of the stative on the basis of comparison with the classical adjective inevitably discloses (lie fundamental relationship between the two, -- such relationship as should be interpreted in no other terms than identity on the part-of-speech level, though, naturally, providing for their distinct differentiation on the subclass level.
The first scholar who undertook this kind of re-consider-ation of the lexemic status of English statives was L. S. Barkhudarov, and in our estimation of them we essentially fol-low his principles, pointing out some additional criteria of argument.
First, considering the basic meaning expressed by the stative, we formulate it as "stative property", i.e. a kind of property of a nounal referent. As we already know, the adjective as a whole signifies not "quality" in the narrow sense, but "property", which is categorially divided into "substantive quality as such" and "substantive relation". In this respect, statives do not fundamentally differ from classical adjectives. Moreover, common adjectives and partici-ples in adjective-type functions can express the same, or, more specifically, typologically the same properties (or "qual-ities" in a broader sense) as are expressed by statives.
Indeed, the main meaning types conveyed by statives are:
the psychic state of a person (afraid, ashamed, aware); the physical state of a person (astir, afoot); the physical state of an object (afire, ablaze, aglow); the state of an object in space (askew, awry, aslant). Meanings of the same order are rendered by pre-positional adjectives. Cf.:
the living predecessor -- the predecessor alive; eager curi-osity -- curiosity agog; the burning house -- the house afire; a floating raft -- a raft afloat; a half-open door -- a door adjar; slanting ropes -- ropes aslant; a vigilant man -- a man awake;
similar cases -- cases alike; an excited crowd -- a crowd astir.
It goes without saying that many other adjectives and participles convey the meanings of various states irrespective of their analogy with statives. Cf. such words of the order of psychic state as despondent, curious, happy, joyful; such words of the order of human physical state as sound, refreshed, healthy, hungry; such words of the order of activity state as busy, functioning, active, employed, etc.
Second, turning to the combinability characteristics of statives, we see that, though differing from those of the com-mon adjectives in one point negatively, they basically coin-cide with them in the other points. As a matter of fact, sta-tives are not used in attributive pre-position. but, like ad-jectives, they are distinguished by the left-hand categorial combinability both with nouns and link-verbs. Cf.:
The household was nil astir.----The household was all excited -- It was strange to see (the household active at this hour of the day.-- It was strange to see the household active at this hour of the day.
Third, analysing the functions of the stative correspond-ing to its combinability patterns, we see that essentially they do not differ from the functions of the common ad-jective. Namely, the two basic functions of the stative are the predicative and the attribute. The similarity of functions leads to the possibility of the use of a stative and a common adjective in a homogeneous group. E.g.: Launches and barges moored to the dock were ablaze and loud with wild sound.
True, the predominant function of the stative, as differ-ent from the common adjective, is that of the predicative. But then, the important structural and functional peculiari-ties of statives uniting them in a distinctly separate set of lexemes cannot be disputed. What is disputed is the status of this set in relation to the notional parts of speech, not its existence or identification as such.
Fourth, from our point of view, it would not be quite consistent with the actual lingual data to place the stative strictly out of the category of comparison. As we have shown above, the category of comparison is connected with the func-tional division of adjectives into evaluative and specificative, Like common adjectives, statives are subject to this flexible division, and so in principle they are included into the expression of the quantitative estimation of the corre-sponding properties conveyed by them. True, statives do not take the synthetical forms of the degrees of comparison, but they are capable of expressing comparison analytically, in cases where it is to be expressed.
Cf.: Of us all, Jack was the one most aware of the delicate situation in which we found ourselves. I saw that the adjust-ing lever stood far more askew than was allowed by the di-rections.
Fifth, quantitative considerations, though being a sub-sidiary factor of reasoning, tend to support the conjoint part-of-speech interpretation of statives and common adjectives. Indeed, the total number of statives does not exceed several dozen (a couple of dozen basic, "stable" units and, probably, thrice as many "unstable" words of the nature of coinages for the nonce). This num-ber is negligible in comparison with the number of words of the otherwise identified notional parts of speech, each of them counting thousands of units. Why, then, an honour of the part-of-speech status to be granted to a small group of words not differing in their fundamental lexico-grammatical features from one of the established large word-classes?
As for the set-forming prefix a-, it hardly deserves a se-rious consideration as a formal basis of the part-of-speech identification of statives simply because formal features cannot be taken in isolation from functional features. More-over, as is known, there are words of property not distinguished by this prefix, which display essential functional character-istics inherent in the stative set. In particular, here belong such adjectives as ill, well, glad, sorry, worth (while), subject (to), due (to), underway, and some others. On the other hand, among the basic statives we find such as can hardly be ana-lysed into a genuine combination of the type "prefix + root", because their morphemic parts have become fused into one indivisible unit in the course of language history, e.g. aware, afraid, aloof.
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
