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.

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.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3