Thus, the undertaken semantic and functional analysis shows that statives, though forming a unified set of words, do not constitute a separate lexemic class existing in lan-guage on exactly the same footing as the noun, the verb, the adjective, the adverb; rather it should be looked upon as a subclass within the general class of adjectives. It is essentially an adjectival subclass, because, due to their pe-culiar features, statives are not directly opposed to the no-tional parts of speech taken together, but are quite particu-larly opposed to the rest of adjectives. It means that the gen-eral subcategorization of the class of adjectives should be effected on the two levels: on the upper level the class will be divided into the subclass of stative adjectives and com-mon adjectives; on the lower level the common adjectives fall into qualitative and relative, which division has been discussed in the foregoing paragraph.

As we see, our final conclusion about the lexico-grammatical nature of statives appears to have returned them into the lexemic domain in which they were placed by traditional grammar and from which they were alienated in the course of subsequent linguistic investigations. A question then arises, whether these investigations, as well as the discussions accompanying them, have served any rational purpose at all.

The answer to this question, though, can only be given in the energetic affirmative. Indeed, all the detailed studies of statives undertaken by quite a few scholars, all the dis-cussions concerning their systemic location and other related matters have produced very useful results, both theoretical and practical.

The traditional view of the stative was not supported by any special analysis, it was formed on the grounds of mere surface analogies and outer correlations. The later study of statives resulted in the exposition of their inner properties, in the discovery of their historical productivity as a sub-class, in their systemic description on the lines of competent inter-class and inter-level comparisons. And it is due to the undertaken investigations (which certainly will be continued) that we are now in a position, though having rejected the fundamental separation of the stative from the adjective, to name the subclass of statives as one of the peculiar, idio-matic lexemic features of Modern English.

As is widely known, adjectives display the ability to be easily substantivized by conversion, i.e. by zero-deriv-ation. Among the noun-converted adjectives we find both old units, well-established in the system of lexicon, and also new ones, whose adjectival etymology conveys to the lexeme the vivid colouring of a new coinage.

For instance, the words a relative or a white or a dear bear an unquestionable mark of established tradition, while such a noun as a sensitive used in the following sentence fea-tures a distinct flavour of purposeful conversion: He was a regional man, a man who wrote about sensitives who live away from the places where things happen.

Compare this with the noun a high in the following exam-ple: The weather report promises a new high in heat and humidity.

From the purely categorial point of view, however, there is no difference between the adjectives cited in the examples and the ones given in the foregoing enumeration, since both groups equally express constitutive categories of the noun, i.e. the number, the case, the gender, the article determina-tion, and they likewise equally perform normal nounal func-tions.

On the other hand, among the substantivized adjectives there is a set characterized by hybrid lexico-grammatical features, as in the following examples:

The new bill concerning the wage-freeze introduced by the Labour Government cannot satisfy either the poor, or the rich (Radio Broadcast). A monster. The word conveyed the ultimate in infamy and debasement inconceivable to one not native to the times (J. Vance). The train, indulging all his English nostalgia for the plushy and the genteel, seemed to him a deceit (M. Bradbury).

The mixed categorial nature of the exemplified words is evident from their incomplete presentation of the part-of speech characteristics of either nouns or adjectives. Like nouns, the words are used in the article form; like nouns, they express the category of number (in a relational way); but their article and number forms are rigid, being no sub-ject to the regular structural change inherent in the normal expression of these categories. Moreover, being categorially unchangeable, the words convey the mixed adjectival-nounal semantics of property.

The adjectival-nounal words in question are very specific. They are distinguished by a high productivity and, like sta-tives, are idiomatically characteristic of Modern English.

On the analogy of verbids these words might be called "adjectivids", since they are rather nounal forms of adjectives than nouns as such.

The adjectivids fall into two main grammatical sub-groups, namely, the subgroup pluralia tantum {the English, the rich, the unemployed, the uninitiated, etc.), and the sub-group singularia tantum (the invisible, the abstract, the tangible, etc.). Semantically, the words of the first subgroup express sets of people (personal multitudes), while the words of the second group express abstract ideas of various types and connotations.

The category of adjectival comparison expresses the quantitative characteristic of the quality of a nounal referent, i.e. it gives a relative evaluation of the quantity of a quality. The purely relative nature of the categorial semantics of comparison is reflected in its name.

Position of Adjectives.

1 Most adjectives can be used in a noun group, after determiners and numbers if there are any, in front of the noun.

e.g. He had a beautiful smile.

She bought a loaf of white bread.

There was no clear evidence.

2 Most adjectives can also be used after a link verb such as `be',

`become', or `feel'.

e.g. I'm cold.

3. Some adjectives are normally used only after a link verb.

For example, we can say `She was glad', but you do not talk about `a glad woman'.

I wanted to be alone.

We were getting ready for bed.

I'm not quite sure.

He didn't know whether to feel glad or sorry.

4. Some adjectives are normally used only in front of a noun.

For example, we talk about `an atomic bomb', but we do not say `The bomb was atomic'. He sent countless letters to the newspapers.

This book includes a good introductory chapter on forests.

5. When we use an adjective to emphasize a strong feeling or opinion, it always comes in front of a noun.

Some of it was absolute rubbish.

He made me feel like a complete idiot.

6. Some adjectives that describe size or age can come after a noun group consisting of a number or determiner and a noun that indicates the unit of measurement.

He was about six feet tall.

The water was several metres deep.

The baby is nine months old.

Note that you do not say `two pounds heavy', you say `two pounds in weight'.

7. A few adjectives are used alone after a noun.

She was now the president elect.

There are empty houses galore.

8. A few adjectives have a different meaning depending on whether they come in front of or after a noun.

For example, `the concerned mother' means a mother who is worried, but `the mother concerned' means the mother who has been mentioned.

It's one of those incredibly involved stories.

The people involved are all doctors.

I'm worried about the present situation.

Of the 18 people present, I knew only one.

Her parents were trying to act in a responsible manner.

We do not know the person responsible for his death.

Degrees of Comparison

The category is constituted by the opposition of the three forms known under the heading of degrees of comparison: the basic form (positive degree), having no features of corn" parison; the comparative degree form, having the feature of restricted .superiority (which limits the comparison to two elements only); the superlative degree form, having the fea-ture of unrestricted superiority.

It should be noted that the meaning of unrestricted su-periority is in-built in the superlative degree as such, though in practice this form is used in collocations imposing certain restrictions on the effected comparison; thus, the form in question may be used to signify restricted superiority, name-ly, in cases where a limited number of referents are com-pared. Cf.: Johnny was the strongest boy in the com-pany.

As is evident from the example, superiority restriction is shown here not by the native meaning of the superlative, but by the particular contextual construction of comparison where the physical strength of one boy is estimated in rela-tion to that of his companions.

Some linguists approach the number of the degrees of comparison as problematic on the grounds that the basic form of the adjective does not express any comparison by itself and therefore should be excluded from the category. This exclusion would reduce the category to two members only, i.e. the comparative and superlative degrees.

However, the oppositional interpretation of grammatical categories underlying our considerations does not admit of such an exclusion; on the contrary, the non-expression of superiority by the basic form is understood in the oppositional presentation of comparison as a pre-requisite for the ex-pression of the category as such. In this expression of the category the basic form is the unmarked member, not distin-guished by any comparison suffix or comparison auxiliary, while the superiority forms (i.e. the comparative and super-lative) are the marked members, distinguished by the com-parison suffixes or comparison auxiliaries.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5