e.g. good is basically qualitative, but used as a grading term in teaching it acquires the specificative value (bad, satisfactory, good, excellent).

Many adjectives considered under the heading of relative still can form degrees of comparison, thereby, as it were, transforming the denoted relative property of a substance into such as can be graded quantitatively (e.g. a military design – of a less military design – of a more military design).

Agrave; The adjective functions may be grammatically divided into ‘evaluative’ and ‘specificative’. One and the same adjective, irrespective of its being relative or qualitative, can be used either in one or the other function.

e.g. good is basically qualitative, but used as a grading term in teaching it acquires the specificative value (bad, satisfactory, good, excellent).

The category of degrees of comparis:Хаймович/Роговская:

The category of the degrees of comparison of adjectives is the system of opposemes (long – longer – longest) showing qualitative distinctions of qualities. More exactly it shows whether the adjective denotes the property of some substance absolutely, or relatively as a higher or the highest amount of the property in comparison with that of some other substances.

à ‘positive’, ‘comparative’ and ‘superlative’ degrees.

The positive degree is not marked. We may speak of a zero morpheme. The comparative and superlative degrees are built up either synthetically (by affixation or suppletivity) or analytically (with the help of word-morphemes more and most), which depends mainly on the structure of the stem.

Some authors treat more beautiful and the most beautiful not as analytical forms, but as free syntactical combinations of adverbs and adjectives. One of the arguments is that less and least form combinations with adjectives similar to those with more and most: e.g. more beautiful – less beautiful, the most beautiful – the least beautiful.

In order to prove that more beautiful is an analytical form of the comparative degree, we have to prove that more is a grammatical word-morpheme identical with the morpheme –er.

1.More an –er are identical as o their meaning of ‘a higher degree’.

2.Their distribution is complementary. Together they cover all the adjectives having the degrees of comparison. Those adjectives which have comparative opposites with suffix –er have usually no parallel opposites with more and vice versa.

e.g. beautiful – more beautiful (not beautifuller),nice – nicer (not more nice)

This is not the case with less:

1.Less and –er have different, even opposite meanings.

2.The distribution of –er and less is not complementary. One and the same lexical morpheme regularly attaches both less and –er: prettier – less pretty, safer – less safe.

Besides, unlike more, less is regularly replaced by not so: less pretty = not so pretty.

These facts show that more in more beautiful is a grammatical word-morpheme identical with the morpheme –er of the comparative degree grammeme à more beautiful is an analytical form.

A new objection is raised in the case of the superlative degree. In the expression a most interesting theory the indefinite article is used whereas a prettiest child is impossible à there is some difference between the synthetic superlative and the analytical one.

One must not forget that more and most are not only word-morphemes of comparison. They can be notional words. They are polysemantic and polyfunctional words. One of the meanings of most is ‘very, exceedingly’ (a most interesting book).

The notional word more in the meaning ‘to greater extent’ can also be used to modify adjectives, as in It’s more grey than brown. More grey here is a combination of words.

The positive degree does not convey the idea of comparison. Its meaning is absolute. Jespersen: the positive degree is, a matter of fact, negative in relation to comparison.

The comparative degree and the superlative degree are both relative in meaning (Peter is older than Mary – Peter is not old).

Smirnitsky: thinks that there is good ground to speak of 2 forms of comparison: the positive degree and the relative degree which exists in 2 varieties – the comparative degree and the superlative degree.

Statives.

Blokh:Among the words signifying properties of a nounal referent there is a leximic set which claims to be recognied as a separate part of speech, a class of words different form 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. These are treated as predicative adjectives in traditional grammar.

Scherbs and Vinogradov were the first to identify notional words signifying states and specially used as predicatives. They called the newly identified part of speech the “category of state“ (Russian words: тепло, зябко, одиноко, радостно, жаль, лень).

The term “words of the category of state” being rather cumbersome form 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.

Хаймович/Роговская: statives are ‘adlinks’ (on analogy with adverbs), they are opposed to adjectives

Substantivization of adjectives. Adjectivization of nouns.

Blokh:Among the substantivized adjectives there is a set characterized by hybrid lexico-grammatical features. On analogy of verbids these words might be called “adjectivids”.

The adjectivids fall into 2 main grammatical subgroups:

1.pluralia tantum (the English, the rich, the unemployed)à sets of people

2.singularia tantum (the invisible, the abstract)à abstract ideas

№27.Actual division of the sentence.

It is well known fact that the notional parts of the sentence form together the nominative meaning of the sentence. The division of the sentence into notional parts can be called the nominative division a long side of nominative division. The idea of the actual division has been put forward in theoretical linguistics. Its purpose is to reveal the correlative significance of the sentence parts from the point of view of their actual informative role in an utterance.

The main components of the actual division are the “theme” and the “rheme”.

Theme expresses the starting point of the communication.

Rheme expresses the basic informative part of the communication .

Between the theme and the rheme are positioned intermediary parts of the actual division. The theme may or may not coincide with the subject of the sentence. The rheme with a predicate. The actual division finds its full expression only in a concrete context of speech. If it is stylistically neutral construction the theme is the subject and the rheme is the predicate and this kind of actual division is direct. The actual division in which the rheme is expressed by the subject is inverted.

- The means of expressing the rheme :

1.Lexical meanings – particles (only,even)

2.Logical stress-

3.Change of syntactic structure (It was he who did it)

4.Passive voice.

- Means of expressing theme

1.Definite article.

2.Word order.

The actual division is an active means of expressing functional meaning.

И.Ф.Вардуаль: Division which presents the ‘basic item’ and the ‘nucleus of the message’, ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’, ‘given’ and ‘new’ was called by V.Mathesius “the actual division of the sentence” as distinguished from its “formal division”. Actual division is the result of the influence of context and situation.

Intonation is a very important means of actual division.

К.Г.Крушельницкая/А.В. де Грот: actual division is the reflection of the speaker’s attitude towards what is said. This point of view is less acceptable.

The point of the actual division of the sentence is in the lingual limitation of the amount of information carried by the message.

Date: 2015-02-03; view: 853