THE ADJECTIVE

General Characteristics

While traditional grammars usuallydefine nouns and verbs semantically, they often shift to functional criteria to characterize adjectives. For example, Rayevska defines anadjective as a word which expresses the attributes of substances (good, young, easy, soft, loud, hard, wooden, flaxen). As a class of lexical words adjectives are identified by their ability to fill the position between noun-determiner and noun and the position after a copula-verb and a qualifier.

Semantic features of the adjective.The adjective expresses property or quality of a substance. According to Blokh, each adjective used in the text, presupposes relation to some noun the property of whose referent it denotes, such as material, colour, dimensions, position, state, and other characteristics both permanent and temporary. It follows from this that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full nominative value. Indeed, words like long, hospitable, fragrant cannot affect any self-dependent nominations; as units of informative sequences they exist only in collocations showing what is long, who is hospitable, what is fragrant.

Considered in meaning, adjectives fall into two large groups:

a) qualitative adjectives,

b) relative adjectives.

Qualitative adjectivesdenote qualities of size, shape, colour, etc. which an object may possess in various degrees. Qualitative adjectives have degrees of comparison.

Relative adjectivesexpress qualities which characterise an object through its relation to another object; wooden tables → tables made of wood, woollen gloves → gloves made of wool, Siberian wheat → wheat from Siberia. Further examples of relative adjectives are: rural, industrial, urban, etc.

Linguistically it is utterly impossible to draw a rigid line of demarcation between the two classes, for in the course of language development the so-called relative adjectives gradually develop qualitative meanings. Thus, for instance, through metaphoric extension adjectives denoting material have come to be used in the figurative sense, e. g.: golden age золотий вік, golden hours щасливий час, golden mean золота середина, golden opportunity чудова нагода, golden hair золотаве волосся, etc.

Morphological features of the adjective. Adjectives in Modern English are invariable. As is well known, it has neither number, nor case, nor gender distinctions. Some adjectives have, however, degrees of comparison, which make part of the morphological system of a language. It seems practical to distinguish between base adjectives and derived adjectives.

Base adjectivesexhibit the following formal qualities: they may take inflections -er and -est or have some morphophonemic changes in cases of the suppletion, such as, for instance, in good —better —the best; bad — worse — the worst. Base adjectives are also distinguished formally by the fact that they serve as stems from which nouns and adverbs are formed by the derivational suffixes -ness and -ly.

Base adjectives are mostly of one syllable, and none have more than two syllables except a few that begin with a derivational prefix un-or in-, e. g.: uncommon, inhuman, etc. They have no derivational suffixes and usually form their comparative and superlative degrees by means of the inflectional suffixes -er and -est. Quite a number of based adjectives form verbs by adding the derivational suffix -en, the prefix en- or both: blacken, brighten, cheapen, sweeten, widen, enrich, enlarge, embitter, enlighten, enliven, etc.

Derived adjectivesare formed by the addition of derivational suffixes to free or bound stems. They usually form analytical comparatives and superlatives by means of the qualifiers more and most. Some of the more important suffixes which form derived adjectives are:

-ableadded to verbs and bound stems, denoting quality with implication of capacity, fitness or worthness to be acted upon; -able is often used in the sense of "tending to", "given to", "favouring", "causing", "able to" or "liable to". This very common suffix is a live one which can be added to virtually any verb thus giving rise to many new coinages. As it is the descendant of an active derivational suffix in Latin, it also appears as a part of many words borrowed from Latin and French. Examples formed from verbs: remarkable, adaptable, conceivable, drinkable, eatable, regrettable, understandable, etc.; examples formed from bound stems: capable, portable, viable. The unproductive variant of the suffix -able is the suffix -ible (Latin -ibilis, -bilis), which we find in adjectives Latin in origin: visible, forcible, comprehensible, etc.; -ible is no longer used in the formation of new words.

-al, -ial(Lat. -alls, French -al, -el) denoting quality "belonging to", "pertaining to", "having the character of", "appropriate to", e. g.: elemental, bacterial, automnal, fundamental, etc.

The suffix -al added to nouns and bound stems (fatal, local, natural, national, traditional, etc.) is often found in combination with -ic, e. g.: biological, botanical, juridical, typical, etc.

-ish—Germanic in origin, denoting nationality, quality with the meaning "of the nature of", "belonging to", "resembling" also with the sense "somewhat like", often implying contempt, derogatory in force, e. g.: Turkish, bogish, outlandish, whitish, wolfish.

-y — Germanic in origin, denoting quality "pertaining to", "abounding in", "tending or inclined to", e.g.: rocky, watery, bushy, milky, sunny, etc.

Syntacticfeatures. (a) Adjectives combine with nouns both preceding and (occasionally) following them (large room, times immemorial). They also combine with a preceding adverb (very large). Adjectives can be followed by the phrase "preposition + noun" (free from danger). Occasionally they combine with a preceding verb (married young). (b) In the sentence, an adjective can be either an attribute (large room) or a predicative (is large). It can also be an objective predicative (painted the door green).

The Category of Intensity and Comparison

1) how many degrees of comparison has the English adjective?

If we take, for example, the three forms of an English adjective: large, larger, (the) largest, shall we say that they are, all three of them, degrees of comparison? In that case we ought to term them positive, comparative, and superlative. Or shall we say that only the latter two are degrees of comparison (comparative and superlative), whereas the first (large), does not express any idea of comparison and is therefore not a degree of comparison at all? Both views have found their advocates in grammatical theory.

Now it is well known that not every adjective has degrees of comparison. This may depend on two factors. One of these is not grammatical, but semantic. Since degrees of comparison express a difference of degree in the same property, only those adjectives admit of degrees of comparison which denote properties capable of appearing in different degrees. Thus, it is obvious that, for example, the adjective middle has no degrees of comparison. The same might be said about many other adjectives, such as blind, deaf, dead, etc. However, this should not be taken too absolutely. Occasionally we may meet with such a sentence as this: You cannot be deader than dead.

2) A more complex problem in the sphere of degrees of comparison is that of the formations more difficult, (the) most difficult, or more beautiful, (the) most beautiful. The question is this: is more difficult an analytical comparative degree of the adjective difficult? In that case the word more would be an auxiliary word serving to make up that analytical form, and the phrase would belong to the sphere of morphology. Or is more difficult a free phrase, not different in its essential character from the phrase very difficult or somewhat difficult"? In that case the adjective difficult would have no degrees of comparison at all (forming degrees of comparison of this adjective by means of the inflections -er, -est isimpossible), and the whole phrase would be a syntactical formation. The traditional view held both by practical and theoretical grammars until recently was that phrases of this type were analytical degrees of comparison. Recently, however, the view has been put forward that they do not essentially differ from phrases of the type very difficult, which, of course, nobody would think of treating as analytical forms.

Let us examine the arguments that have been or may be put forward in favour of one and the other view.

The view that formations of the type more difficult are analytical degrees of comparison may be supported by the following considerations: (1) The actual meaning of formations like more difficult, (the) most difficult does not differ from that of the degrees of comparison larger, (the) largest. (2) Qualitative adjectives, like difficult, express properties which may be present in different degrees, and therefore they are bound to have degrees of comparison.

The argument against such formations being analytical degrees of comparison would run roughly like this. No formation should be interpreted as an analytical form unless there are compelling reasons for it, and if there are considerations contradicting such a view. Now, in this particular case there are such considerations: (1) The words more and most have the same meaning in these phrases as in other phrases in which they may appear, e. g. more time, most people, etc. (2) Alongside of the phrases more difficult, (the) most difficult there are also the phrases less difficult, (the) least difficult, and 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. Besides, the very fact that more and less, (the) most and (the) least can equally well combine with difficult, would seem to show that they are free phrases and none of them is an analytical form. The fact that more difficult stands in the same sense relation to difficult as larger to large is of course certain, but it should have no impact on the interpretation of the phrases more difficult, (the) most difficult from a grammatical viewpoint.

Taking now a general view of both lines of argument, we can say that, roughly speaking, considerations of meaning tend towards recognising such formations as analytical forms, whereas strictly grammatical considerations lead to the contrary view.

A few adjectives do not, as is well known, form any degrees of comparison by means of inflections. Their degrees of comparison are derived from a different root. These are good, better, best; bad, worse, worst, and a few more. Should these formations be acknowledged as suppletive forms of the adjectives good, bad, etc., or should they not? There seems no valid reason for denying them that status. The relation good: better = large: larger is indeed of the same kind as the relation go: went = live: lived, where nobody has expressed any doubt about went being a suppletive past tense form of the verb go. Thus, it is clear enough that there is every reason to take better, worse, etc., as suppletive degrees of comparison to the corresponding adjectives.

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.005 сек.