Now, it does not require a profound analysis to see that, from the grammatical point of view, the formula "opposite meaning" amounts to ascertaining the categorial equality of the forms compared. Indeed, if two forms express the op-posite meanings, then they can only belong to units of the same general order. And we cannot but agree with B. A. Ilyish's thesis that "there seems to be no sufficient reason for treating the two sets of phrases in different ways, saying that 'more difficult' is an analytical form, while 'less difficult' is not" [Ilyish, 60]. True, the cited author takes this fact rather as demonstration that both types of constructions should equally be excluded from the domain of analytical forms, but the problem of the categorial status of the more/most-combinations has been analysed above.

Thus, the less/least-combinations, similar to the more/most-combinations, constitute specific forms of comparison, which may be called forms of "reverse comparison". The two types of forms cannot be syntagmatically combined in one and the same form of the word, which shows the unity of the category of comparison. The whole category includes not three, but five different forms, making up the two ser-ies -- respectively, direct and reverse. Of these, the reverse series of comparison (the reverse superiority degrees) is of far lesser importance than the direct one, which evidently can be explained by semantic reasons. As a matter of fact, it is more natural to follow the direct model of comparison based on the principle of addition of qualitative quantities than on the reverse model of comparison based on the prin-ciple of subtraction of qualitative quantities, since subtrac-tion in general is a far more abstract process of mental ac-tivity than addition. And, probably, exactly for the same reason the reverse comparatives and superlatives are rivalled in speech by the corresponding negative syntactic construc-tions.

Having considered the characteristics of the category of comparison, we can see more clearly the relation to this category of some usually non-comparable evaluative ad-jectives.

Outside the immediate comparative grammatical change of the adjective stand such evaluative adjectives as contain certain comparative sememic elements in their semantic structures. In particular, as we have mentioned above, here belong adjectives that are themselves grading marks of eval-uation. Another group of evaluative non-comparables is formed by adjectives of indefinitely moderated quality, or, tentatively, "moderating qualifiers", such as whitish, tepid, half-ironical, semi-detached, etc. But the most peculiar lexemic group of non-comparables is made up by adjectives expressing the highest degree of a respective quality, which words can tentatively be called "adjectives of extreme quali-ty", or "extreme qualifiers", or simply "extremals".

The inherent superlative semantics of extremals is em-phasized by the definite article normally introducing their nounal combinations, exactly similar to the definite article used with regular collocations of the superlative degree. Cf.: The ultimate outcome of the talks was encouraging. The final decision has not yet been made public.

On the other hand, due to the tendency of colloquial speech to contrastive variation, such extreme qualifiers can some-times be modified by intensifying elements. Thus, "the final decision" becomes "a very final decision"; "the ultimate rejection" turns into "rather an ultimate rejection"; "the crucial role" is made into "quite a crucial role", etc.

As a result of this kind of modification, the highest grade evalu-ative force of these words is not strengthened, but, on the con-trary, weakened; the outwardly extreme qualifiers become degraded extreme qualifiers, even in this status similar to the regular categorial superlatives degraded in their elative use.

Conclusion

Our subject of investigation was adjectives. Most English adjectives have comparative and superlative forms. These are generally constructed in one of two ways: either by suffixes (big, bigger, biggest) or by the use of the grammatical particles more and most. Some adjectives have suppletive forms in their comparison, such as good, better, best. Comparative and superlative forms apply only to the base form of the adjective, so that duplicate forms like most biggest or worser are nonstandard (although lesser is sometimes permitted as a variant of less). A few adjectives have no comparative but a superlative with -most: uppermost, westernmost, etc. We have investigated that some adjectives have suppletive forms in their comparison, such as good, better, best. Comparative and superlative forms apply only to the base form of the adjective, so that duplicate forms like most biggest or worser are nonstandard (although lesser is sometimes permitted as a variant of less).

An adjective modifies a noun or a pronoun by describing, identifying, or quantifying words. An adjective usually precedes the noun or the pronoun which it modifies. In the following examples, the highlighted words are adjectives:

The truck-shaped balloon floated over the treetops. Mrs. Morrison papered her kitchen walls with hideous wallpaper. The small boat foundered on the wine dark sea. The coalmines are dark and dank. Many stores have already begun to play irritating Christmas music. A battered music box sat on the mahogany sideboard. The back room was filled with large, yellow rain boots. An adjective can be modified by an adverb, or by a phrase or clause functioning as an adverb. In the sentence My husband knits intricately patterned mittens. For example, the adverb ``intricately'' modifies the adjective ``patterned.'' Some nouns, many pronouns, and many participle phrases can also act as adjectives. In the sentence Eleanor listened to the muffled sounds of the radio hidden under her pillow. for example, both highlighted adjectives are past participles.

Grammarians also consider articles (``the,'' ``a,'' ``an'') to be adjectives.

We chose and investigated adjectives with all its parts and types, also with its degrees and positions in the sentences.

1

28

1

28

1

28

1

28

Appendix

LITERATURE

Ilyish B. “The structure of modern English”, M, 1971

Bloch M. “The course in the English grammar”, M, 1983

« Modern English language» (Theoretical course grammar) V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Iofik. Moscow, 1956 y.

“Theoretical grammar of the English language” B.S. Khaimovich, B.I. Rogovskaya. Moscow, 1967 y.

“Morphology of the English language”А.I.Smirnitcky. Moscow, 1959 y.

Weigel, William F. (1993). Morphosyntactic toggles. Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Vol. 29, pp. 467-478). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Wiese, Heike (2003). Numbers, language, and the human mind. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-83182-2.

http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/adjectve.html

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/128/3/615#SEC23

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5