Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






The category of comparison

The category of comparison is constituted by the opposition of three forms

of the adjective: the positive, the comparative, and the superlative.

Some grammarians have expressed the view that there are only two degrees

of comparison. Otto Jespersen, for instance, argues that the positive degree cannot

be regarded as a degree of comparison as it does not convey the idea of

comparison.

According to A.I. Smirnitsky, the degrees of comparison include the positive

degree and the relative degree which is subdivided into the comparative and the

superlative degree.

There are three ways of forming degrees of comparison: synthetic, analytic,

and suppletive. The synthetic way of forming degrees of comparison is by the

inflections -er, -est; the analytic way, by placing more and most before the

adjective. The synthetic way is generally used with monosyllabic adjectives and

dissyllabic adjectives ending in -y, -ow, -er, -le and those which have the stress on the last syllable. However, in the dissyllabic group we can observe radical changes:

adjectives formerly taking -er and -est are tending to go over to more and most , e.g. more common, most common; more cloudy, most cloudy; more fussy, most fussy; more cruel, most cruel; more quiet, most quiet; more clever, most clever; more profound, most profound; more simple, most simple; more pleasant, most pleasant – all these were normally compared with -er and -est before the WWII.

All this goes to show that English comparison is getting more and more analytic.

The question that linguists have been grappling with is: what is the linguistic

status of analytic forms? Are more and most adverbs of quantity (degree) or

grammatical word-morphemes? The problem is similar to the problem of the future

in English. At present linguists are divided on this question: some linguists (A. I.

Smirnitskyj, B. Khaimovich and B. Rogovskaya, B. Blokh) treat degrees of

comparison with more and most as analytic constructions proper while others (V.

N. Zhigadlo, L. S. Barkhudarov, D. A. Shteling,) treat them as free combinations

of adverbs and adjectives.

To analytic forms of comparison M. Blokh also attributes less/least

combinations. He calls them forms of reverse comparison. By the way, the forms

less, least are generally used as an argument against the treatment of more and most as grammatical word-morphemes. So, for instance, B. Ilyish argues that if less and least are not grammatical word morphemes, more and most are not

grammatical word-morphemes either.

As already pointed out, the third way of forming degrees of comparison is

by the use of suppletive forms: good _ better, best; bad _ worse, worst; far _ farther/further, farthest/furthest; little _ less, least; much/many _ more, most.

In discussing the category of comparison, linguists generally mention such

constructions as a most beautiful girl. This combination is a common means of expressing elative evaluations of substance properties. The indefinite article has



nothing to do with comparison; it points to another problem, viz. the lexicalization

of superlative forms: most no longer marks the superlative degree; it has turned

into an adverb of degree whose meaning is the same as that of very.

Cf. also the best suit vs. a best suit; the best seller vs. a best-seller.

The Adverb

Semantic features.The adverb is usually defined as a word expressing

either property of an action, or property of another property, or circumstances in

which an action occurs. However, this definition fails to demonstrate the difference

between the adverb and the adjective. To overcome this drawback, we should

define the adverb as a notional word denoting a non-substantive property, that is,a property of a non-substantive referent. This feature sets the adverb apart from the adjective which, as already known, denotes a substantive property.

Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.

Qualitative adverbs express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of

actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs

in -ly.

Quantitative adverbs are specific lexical units of semi-functional nature

expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. They may be

subdivided into several sets:

1. Adverbs of high degree ("intensifiers"): very, quite, entirely, utterly,

highly, greatly, perfectly, absolutely, strongly, considerably, pretty, much.

2. Adverbs of excessive degree (direct and reverse) also belonging to the

broader subclass of intensifiers: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically.

3. Adverbs of unexpected degree: surprisingly, astonishingly, amazingly.

4. Adverbs of moderate degree: fairly, comparatively, relatively, oderately, rather.

5. Adverbs of low degree: slightly, a little, a bit.

6. Adverbs of approximate degree: almost, nearly.

7. Adverbs of optimal degree: enough, sufficiently, adequately.

8. Adverbs of inadequate degree: insufficiently, intolerably, unbearably,ridiculously.

9. Adverbs of under-degree: hardly, scarcely.

Although the degree adverbs are traditionally described under the heading of

"quantitative", in reality they occupy an intermediate position between qualitative

and quantitative words and therefore can be referred to qualitative adverbs. Thus,

the latter are subdivided into qualitative adverbs of full notional value and degree

adverbs – specific functional words.

Circumstantial adverbs are also divided into notional and functional. The

functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. They include

numerical adverbs, adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of

them are used as syntactic connectives and question-forming words (now, here,

when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.)

Notional circumstantial adverbs include two basic sets: adverbs of time and

adverbs of place: today, tomorrow, already, ever, never, shortly, recently, seldom,early, late; homeward, eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc.

Just like adjectives, adverbs can be divided into evaluative and specificative,

connected with the categorial expression of comparison. Each adverb subject to

evaluation grading by degree words expresses the category of comparison. Thus,

not only qualitative adverbs are included into the categorial system of comparison.

Morphological features. As to their word-building structure adverbs may

be non-derived, or simple (e.g. here, there, now, then, so, quick, why, how, where,when, very, rather) and derived (e.g. slowly, sideways, clockwise, homewards,away, ahead, apart, across). We can also distinguish composite forms and phrasal forms of the adverb: sometimes, nowhere, anyhow; at least, at most, at last, to and fro, upside down. A prolific source of adverbs is the adjective: many –ly adverbs are transformationally related to respective adjectives. The suffix –ly is a typical

marker of the adverb. However, many adverbs related to adjectives may not be

necessarily used with the suffix –ly, e.g. fast, late, hard, high, clean, clear, close,loud, tight, firm, quick, right, sharp, slow, wide, etc.

Special mention should be made of preposition-adverb like elements which

form a semantic blend with verbs: to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away,to give over, etc; to set up, to set in, to set forth, to set down, etc.; to get on, to get off, to get through, to get about , etc. The verb-adverb combination goes by several names: two-part verbs, composite verbs, phrasal verbs. The verbs in such combinations are mostly one-syllable words; the most common adverbs are those denoting place, e.g. in, out, on, off, over, up, down, through, etc. Some of the adverbs may be separated by objective complements, e.g. Please hand in your papers. vs. Please hand your papers in. Others are non-separable, e.g. John called

on me. vs. *John called me on.

In verb-adverb combinations the second element may:

a) retain its adverbial properties of showing direction (e.g. to go out, to go

in, to go away);

b) change the aspect of the verb, i.e. mark the completeness of the process

(e.g. to eat – to eat up; to stand – to stand up; to sit – to sit down; to lie – to lie down; to shave – to shave off; to speak – to speak out);

c) intensify the meaning of the process (e.g. to end – to end up; to finish – to finish up (off); to cut – to cut off; to talk – to talk away);

d) lose its lexical meaning and form an integral whole, a set expression (e.g.

to fall out ‘to quarrel’; to give in ‘to surrender’; to come off ‘to take place’; to leave off ‘to stop’; to boil down ‘to be reduced in quantity’).

These combinations have been treated by different scholars in different

ways. Some scholars have treated the second element as a variety of adverbs, as

preposition-like adverbs (A. Smirnitsky, 1959, 376), as a special kind of adverb

called adverbial postpositon (I. E. Anichkov, 1947), as postverbial particles (L.

Kivimägi et al., 1968: 35), as a special kind of form-word called postpositive (N.

N. Amosova, 1963: 134), a postfix or postpositive affix (Y. Zhluktenko, 1954), a

separate part of speech called postposition (B.A. Ilyish, 1948: 243 – 5). As for B.

Ilyish, he later (1971:148) changed his view arguing that, since the second element

does not indicate the circumstances in which the process takes place, the whole

construction is a phraseological unit: the whole has a meaning different from the

meanings of the components. According to M. Blokh, these elements form a

special functional set of particles based on their functional character. He suggests

the term “post-positives”.

The great variety of interpretations shows the complexity of the problem.

Apparently, the problem requires further research.

Syntactic features.Adverbs are characterized by combinability with verbs,

adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The adverb performs the function of an

adverbial modifier.

Lecture 9


Date: 2015-12-17; view: 3995


<== previous page | next page ==>
Semantic classification | Differential features of the phrase and of the sentence
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.009 sec.)