Contents
Introduction
1. Definitionof the term adjectives
2. How do adjectives make speech more expressive?
3.Grammaticaloverview of english adjectives
4.Degrees of comparison of adjectives
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The theme of my course paper sounds as following: «Adjective,its types and categories». Before beginning of investigation in our theme, Iwould like to say some words dealt with the theme of my course paper.
Without referring to the traditional definition of adjectivesyou can find in any dictionary, Let's make our way into talking about thestandard role of adjectives in language. In English the adjective ismultifunctional. It is used essentially to describe an object but, in general,it is meant to enrich and clarify ideas and lead the interlocutors tocommunicate eloquently.
Standing on such ground, I would like to point out tasks andaims of my work
1. The first task of my work is to give definition to term «adjective».
2. The second task is to describe the role of adjectives inour speech.
3. The last task of my work is to characterize adjectivesfrom grammatical point of view.
In our opinion the practical significance of our work is hardto be overvalued. This work reflects modern trends in linguistics and we hopeit would serve as a good manual for those who wants to master modern Englishlanguage. Also this work can be used by teachers of English language forteaching English grammar.
The present work might find a good way of implying in thefollowing spheres:
1. In High Schools and scientific circles oflinguistic kind it can be successfully used by teachers and philologists asmodern material for writing research works dealing with English adjectives.
2. It can be used by teachers of schools, lyceums andcolleges by teachers of English as a practical manual for teaching Englishgrammar.
3. It can be useful for everyone who wants to enlarge his/herknowledge in English.
After having proved the actuality of our work, I would liketo describe the composition of it:
My work consists of four parts: introduction, the main part,conclusion and bibliography. Within the introduction part we gave the briefdescription of our course paper. The main part of the work includes severalitems. There we discussed such problems as main features of English adjectives,described their role in English language, and gave grammatical characteristicsof them. In the conclusion to our work we tried to draw some results from thescientific investigations made within the present course paper. In bibliographypart we mentioned some sources which were used while compiling the presentwork. It includes linguistic books and articles dealing with the theme, anumber of used dictionaries and encyclopedias and also some internet sources.
1.Definition of the Term Adjectives
Anadjective is a word which acts to modify a noun in a sentence. While adjectivesplay a large role in many languages – such as English – many other languageshave no adjectives at all. In English the set of adjectives is fairly wellunderstood, though some people include other parts of speech – such as articleslike the – in the class of adjectives.
Thereare two main roles an adjective may take in a sentence, and with a fewexceptions each adjective is able to take either role just as easily. The firstrole is to act as a predicative adjective, in which the adjective modifies apreceding noun as a predicate, linked by a verb. An example of a predicativeadjective can be found in the sentence: A zebra is striped. in which theadjective striped is linked the subject of the sentence, zebra, by use of thecopula verb to be in the is form.
Thesecond role an adjective may take is as an attributive adjective, in which itmodifies a noun by being linked directly to the noun as part of the nounphrase. An example of an attributive adjective may be seen in the sentence:‘The striped zebra pranced.’ in which the adjective striped is directlyconnected to the subject of the sentence, zebra. In English, most attributiveadjectives precede the noun they are going to modify, while in many Romancelanguages the adjective comes after the noun. So while in English we might say‘The beautiful woman.’ in French we would say ‘Le femme jolie.’ which may beliterally translated as ‘The woman beautiful.’
Whilemost adjectives in English are able to be used just as easily either in anattributive or a predicative sense, there are some which are restricted to onerole or the other. For example, the adjective sole can be used grammaticallyonly as an attributive adjective, as can be seen in the sentence: This is thesole survivor. On the other hand, trying to use the adjective sole in thepredicative role would result in the ungrammatical sentence: This survivor issole. Other English adjectives, such as alone, may be used only as a predicativeadjective, while attempts to use them attributively result in ungrammaticalsentences.
Adjectivesmay be modified by adverbs or adverbial clauses, but not by other adjectives.Many adjectives, however, can easily translate into corresponding adverbssimply by adding the ending to them. This can be seen in pairs such asquick/quickly and happy/happily.
InEnglish and many other languages, adjectives also have a correct and incorrectorder, depending on the type of adjectives used. Most native speakers learnthis order instinctively, and related mistakes are one of the most obvioussigns of a non-native speaker. For example, using the adjectives red, little,and two with the noun books, most native English speakers would intuitivelyorder the adjectives to form the sentence ‘The two little red books.’ Tonon-native speakers, however, it might seem just as intuitive to say ‘The twored little books.’ or even ‘The red two little books.’ both of which areimmediately obvious as incorrect to a native English speaker.
Asmentioned earlier, not all languages use adjectives; some use other parts ofspeech instead to fill this role. Many Native American languages, for example,use verbs to fill the role that adjectives play in English, so that rather than‘The woman is short.’ we are faced with something like ‘The woman is shorting.’Languages that use nouns as adjectives are often more comprehensible tospeakers of English, since our sentence formations can easily allow formetaphoric description using only nouns, with a verb perhaps to flavor it, suchas ‘The sun was a blazing inferno.’ instead of ‘The sun was hot.’ English alsouses abstract nouns, for example to turn ‘An important statement.’ into ‘Astatement of import.’
2. How Do Adjectives Make Speech More Expressive?
Amessage void of adjectives is the least expressive one. Therefore adjectivesare somehow the backbone of any expression we want to make accurate and clearin encoding the message. Adjectives help us respect real and straightcommunication rules. So, do you «adjective» your messages so well that peoplecan understand you well?[1]
Withoutthe use of adjectives, actually, we lose a lot; and we may be short inexpressing our emotions, opinions, and the impressions we have about a givensubject. We are going to see to what extent the use of adjectives (esp.adjectives of quality) is helpful in our interactive contact with the others?!See this example: Yesterday, I bought a car.
Thissentence seems stiff and dull. It may make you respond to it indifferentlybecause the speaker is giving a vague idea about the car he had bought. Hissentence doesn't really carry a complete well-spoken idea. What the speakerneeds to make his sentence expressive, attractive and provoking, is by relyingon adjectives to colour it and present it in a beautiful structure. Now comparethe first sentence with the following: Yesterday, I bought a red car.
Theimage is getting a little clearer with the adjective «red». Now we knowsomething new about the car. It is not yellow or black, it is rather red.However, actually, it is not yet fully clear enough for us to form a completeimage about the car so as to estimate or underestimate it. Therefore, onesentence can bear as many adjectives as you like, provided that they don'traise misunderstanding or confuse the listener. Yet, the speaker shouldnormally respect the appropriate organization of adjectives in a sentence.
Isthis order of adjectives in sentence compulsory? Is it based on rules? Let'stackle and illustrate this issue through investigating the impact of the use ofadjectives on our «stiff» sentence. What is the most appropriate word-order weshould respect to reach a complete multi-adjectival statement? Suppose thespeaker wants to tell us about the size of the car; and he chooses to depicthis car as «small». Where shall he place the new word in the sentence? Beforeor after the previous adjective, namely: «red»? Look at it this way: Yesterday,I bought a small red car.
Thesentence in its new structure gives more information about the car. We, luckyas we are, have the opportunity to know that the car in question is not a bigone. Thanks to this adjective we become able to make our image of the car alittle bit clearer though some more details are still in need. These detailscannot be provided, so to speak, unless other adjectives come to complete theimage in our minds. The structural issue, on the other hand, is to justify theplacement of the adjective «small» before the adjective «red». Why couldn't wesay instead: [Yesterday, I bought a red small car]? This form is inaccurate.The word ordering, in a sentence, is not moody at all. The accuracy of thesentence here is controlled by the respect of this order, notably: «shape =small» then «colour = red» but not vice versa. Now suppose the speaker intendsto praise his car and decides that the adjective 'beautiful' is the mostsuitable to give his opinion about it, what shall he do? Where shall he placeit among the previously stated adjectives? Look at how the sentence should bestructured: Yesterday, I bought a beautiful, small, red car.
Allthese details are boring but unavoidable to make the structure more formal andaccurate. The 'beautiful' adjective, on the other hand, is quite interesting inthe making of the image. It is not a piece of evidence but it is simply anopinion that could differ from any one else's. The rule says that the opinionis always initial when a range of adjectives are used that's why the speakerplaces his 'beautiful' opinion adjective first. The adjective describes it asbeautiful and this opinion is essentially contributing in depicting an almostcomplete picture. And that's not all. Our sentence is able to bear as moreadjectives as we wish but under the very specific conditions we are trying toclarify here. Now let's go on imagining this famous car as being made in Japan.How can the speaker introduce this new important information?
Yesterday,I bought a beautiful, small, red, Japanese car.
Thebeautiful small car is made in Japan, which we didn't know before the use ofthe adjective «Japanese». It improves the picture of the car in our minds andalso in the way we conceive the object. The car hasn't got an American orEuropean origin. It is simply Japanese. The newly introduced adjective has tobe placed at the end of the list of adjectives already stated. However, it isnot the last in the order. Another adjective, notably the one which gives usinformation about the material with which the car was constructed, is the lastring of the chain. That's amazing, isn't it? Let's go on with it and see theway we are placing the new adjective, Yesterday, I bought a beautiful, small,red, Japanese, plastic car.
We'vefinally reached a quite complete image of this famous car. In English it isnot, normally, allowed to go beyond these five adjectives in a sentence. Theirvariety is supposed to be enough to make any described object lavishly clear.Therefore, any more adjectives of quality in one single sentence generally leadto ambiguity or distortion of the image. That's greatly enough like this. Theconstruction of a syntactically correct structure of a sentence, in which theadjectives are the basis of transmitting a complete clear message, implies theuse of the specific number of adjectives; each of which has to refer you to apiece of information complete in itself but a brick completing the others. Itmeans that no adjectives of the same category should be used more than once.Once these rules are respected, not only will adjectives make your sentencescorrect and clear, but they also will decorate them and make them look formaland adept. With this order in mind, you can make as many sentences as you wish.You will successfully express yourself formally if you follow the correct orderof the adjectives in the sentence. This classification system is notnegotiable, however. You cannot break it unless you speak or write to someonewho doesn't know exactly what a FORMAL sentence looks like.
Examples:
*/There is a lovely, large, multicolour, Moroccan, woollen carpet in my room.
*/She was wearing an attractive, long, auburn, Indian, silky dress.
Asyou can see in these sentences, as well as in the former ones, each pair ofadjectives is separated by a comma (,). When there are more than one adjectivebefore the noun in a sentence, we usually use commas except for adjectives ofcolour which we separate by «and» instead. e.g.:
Ablack and white Djellaba
Ablue, white and red flag.
Adjectivesare used to carry the specific meaning we intend to convey in many differentways. I mean that the same adjective can have more than one meaning depending onthe context. It is not the same in all situations. The adjectives of qualityhave the ability as to «metamorphose» in their implications once their contexthas been changed. I mean that they can go from the proper meaning to thefigurative one and the same adjective can mean two different things in twodifferent contexts. For example the adjective «pretty» means «attractive» butin another context, it means «fine or good». The adjective «rich», also, hasgot this quality. It can be used for more than one meaning. Here is a usualexample:
1.That's a rich man. (He is wealthy; he's got a lot of money).
2.That's a rich book. (There are a lot of interesting ideas and insights in it).
Sometimesthe adjectives turn to be rigid and one adjective is used only for specificpurpose and cannot be used for others though they share the same quality. Lookat this example:
-/My uncle is the tall man in the middle.
Aman is «tall»; but what about a building or a mountain? Can we attribute theadjective «tall» to them, too? No, another adjective is quite more suitablebecause it is more expressive and accurate in this situation, it is «high»:
-/A high building / mountain.
3. Grammatical overview ofEnglish Adjectives
There is not much to be said about theEnglish adjective from the grammatical point of view. As is well know, it hasneither number, nor case, nor gender distinctions. Some adjectives have,however, degrees of соmparisоn, which make part of the morphological system of a language.Thus, the English adjective differs materially not only from such highlyinflected languages as Russian. Latin, and German, where the adjectives have arather complicated sуstem оf fоrms, but even fгоm Modern French, which h as preserved number and genderdistinсtiоns to the present day (сf. masculinesingular grand, masculine plural grands, feminine singular grande, feminineplural grandes 'large').
By what signs do we then, recognize anadjective as such in Modern Eng1ish? In most cases this сan be dоne оn1у bу taking intoaccount semantic and sуntасtiсal phenomena. But in some cases, that is for certain adjeсtives, derivativesuffixes are significant, too. Among these are the suffix – less (as in useless),the suffix – like (as in ghostlike), and a few others. Occasionally, however,though a suffix often appears in adjectives, it cannot be taken as a certainproof of the word being an adjective, because the suffix may also make part ofa word belonging to another part of speech. Thus, the suffix – full would seemto be typically adjectival, as is its antonym – less. In faсt we find the suffix – fullin adjectives often enough, as in beautiful, useful, purposeful, meaningful,etc. But alongside of these we also find spoonful. mouthful, handfu1, etc.,which are nouns.
Оn the whole, the numbeг оf adjectiveswhich сan berecognized, as such by their suffix seems to be insignificant as compared withthe mass of English adjectives.[2] All theadjectives are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative andrelative.
Relative adjectives express suchproperties of a substance as are determined by the direct relation of the substanceto some other substance.
E.g.: wood – a wooden hut; mathematics – mathematicalprecision; history – a historical event;
table – tabular presentation; colors – coloredpostcards;
surgery – surgical treatment; the MiddleAges – mediaeval rites.
The nature of this «relationship» inadjectives is best revealed by definitional correlations. Cf.: a wooden hut – ahut made of wood; a historical event – an event referring to a certain periodof history; surgical treatment – treatment consisting in the implementation ofsurgery; etc.
Qualitative adjectives, as different fromrelative ones, denote various qualities of substances which admit of aquantitative estimation, i.e. of establishing their correlative quantitativemeasure. The measure of a quality can be estimated as high or low, adequate orinadequate, sufficient or insufficient, optimal or excessive. Cf.: an awkwardsituation – a very awkward situation; a difficult task – too difficult a task;an enthusiastic reception – rather an enthusiastic reception; a hearty welcome –not a very hearty welcome; etc.
In this connection, the ability of anadjective to form degrees of comparison is usually taken as a formal sign ofits qualitative character, in opposition to a relative adjective which isunderstood as incapable of forming degrees of comparison by definition. Cf.: apretty girl – a prettier girl; a quick look – a quicker look; a hearty welcome –the heartiest of welcomes; a bombastic speech – the most bombastic speech.
However, in actual speech the describedprinciple of distinction is not at all strictly observed, which is noted in thevery grammar treatises putting it forward. Two typical cases of contradictionshould be pointed out here.
In the first place, substances can possesssuch qualities as are incompatible with the idea of degrees of comparison.Accordingly, adjectives denoting these qualities, while belonging to thequalitative subclass, are in the ordinary use incapable of forming degrees ofcomparison. Here refer adjectives like extinct, immobile, deaf, final, fixed,etc.
In the second place, many adjectivesconsidered under the heading of relative still can form degrees of comparison,thereby, as it were, transforming the denoted relative property of a substanceinto such as can be graded quantitatively. Cf.: a mediaeval approach–rather amediaeval approach – a far more mediaeval approach; of a military design – of aless military design – of a more military design;
a grammatical topic ~ a purely grammaticaltopic – the most grammatical of the suggested topics.
In order to overcome the demonstrated lackof rigour in the definitions in question, we may introduce an additionallinguistic distinction which is more adaptable to the chances of usage. Thesuggested distinction is based on the evaluative function of adjectives.According as they actually give some qualitative evaluation to the substancereferent or only point out its corresponding native property, all the adjectivefunctions may be grammatically divided into «evaluative» and «specificative».In particular, one and the same adjective, irrespective of its being basically(i.e. in the sense of the fundamental semantic property of its rootconstituent) «relative» or «qualitative», can be used either in the evaluativefunction or in the specificative function.
For instance, the adjective good isbasically qualitative. On the other hand, when employed as a grading term inteaching, i.e. a term forming part of the marking scale together with thegrading terms bad, satisfactory, excellent, it acquires the said specificativevalue; in other words, it becomes a specificative, not an evaluative unit inthe grammatical sense (though, dialectically, it does signify in this case alexical evaluation of the pupil's progress). Conversely, the adjective woodenis basically relative, but when used in the broader meaning «expressionless» or«awkward» it acquires an evaluative force and, consequently, can presuppose agreater or lesser degree («amount») of the denoted properly in thecorresponding referent. E.g.:
Bundle found herself looking into theexpressionless, wooden face of Superintendent Battle (A. Christie). Thesuperintendent was sitting behind a table and looking more wooden than ever.
The degrees of comparison are essentiallyevaluative formulas, therefore any adjective used in a higher comparison degree(comparative, superlative) is thereby made into an evaluative adjective, ifonly for the nonce (see the examples above).
Thus, the introduced distinction between theevaluative and specificative uses of adjectives, in the long run, emphasizesthe fact that the morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) ispotentially represented in the whole class of adjectives and is constitutivefor it.
Among the words signifying properties of aneural referent there is a lexemic set which claims to be recognized as aseparate part of speech, i.e. as a class of words different from the adjectivesin its class-forming features. These are words built up by the prefix a – anddenoting different states, mostly of temporary duration. Here belong lexemeslike afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze. In traditional grammar these words weregenerally considered under the heading of «predicative adjectives» (some ofthem also under the heading of adverbs), since their most typical position inthe sentence is that of a predicative and they are but occasionally used aspre-positional attributes to nouns.
The only morphological problem concerningadjectives is, then, that of degrees of comparison. The first question whicharises here is, how many degrees of comparison has the English adjective (and,for that matter, the adjective in other languages, such as Russian. Latin, orGerman)? If we take, for example, the three fоrms of an English adjective: large,larger, (the) largest, shall we say that they are all three of them, degrees ofcomparison? In that case we ought to term them positive, comparative, andsuperlative. Or shall we sау that only the latter two are degrees ofcomparison (comparative, and superlative), whereas the first (large) does notexpress any idea of comparison and is therefore not a degree of comparison atall? Both views have found their advocates in grammatical theоry. Now, if we define adegree оf соmparisоn as а form expressingсоmparisоn of one object orobjects with another in respect of a certain property, it would seem that thefirst of the three forms (large) shоuld not be inс1uded, as it does nоt express any соmparisоn. Then we should haveonly twо degrees ofcomparisоn larger,(the) largest, and a form standing apart, coinciding with the stem from whichthe degrees of comparison are formed, and which may be described as the basicform.[3]
4. Degrees of Comparison of Adjectives
The category is constituted by the opposition of the threeforms known under the heading of degrees of comparison: the basic form(positive degree), having no features of comparison; the comparative degreeform, having the feature of restricted superiority (which limits the comparisonto two elements only); the superlative degree form, having the feature ofunrestricted superiority.
It should be noted that the meaning of unrestrictedsuperiority is in-built in the superlative degree as such, though in practicethis form is used in collocations imposing certain restrictions on the effectedcomparison; thus, the form in question may be used to signify restrictedsuperiority, namely, in cases where a limited number of referents are compared.Cf.: Johnny was the strongest boy in the company.
As is evident from the example, superiority restriction is shownhere not by the native meaning of the superlative, but by the particularcontextual construction of comparison where the physical strength of one boy isestimated in relation to that of his companions.
Some linguists approach the number of the degrees ofcomparison as problematic on the grounds that the basic form of the adjectivedoes not express any comparison by itself and therefore should be excluded fromthe category. This exclusion would reduce the category to two members only,i.e. the comparative and superlative degrees.
However, the oppositional interpretation of grammaticalcategories underlying our considerations does not admit of such an exclusion;on the contrary, the non-expression of superiority by the basic form isunderstood in the oppositional presentation of comparison as a pre-requisitefor the expression of the category as such. In this expression of the categorythe basic form is the unmarked member, not distinguished by any comparisonsuffix or comparison auxiliary, while the superiority forms (i.e. thecomparative and superlative) are the marked members, distinguished by thecomparison suffixes or comparison auxiliaries.
That the basic form as the positive degree of comparison doesexpress this categorical idea, being included in one and the same allegoricalseries with the superiority degrees, is clearly shown by its actual uses incomparative syntactic constructions of equality, as well as comparativesyntactic constructions of negated equality. Cf.: The remark was as bitter ascould be. The Rockies are not so high as the Caucasus.
These constructions are directly correlative with comparativeconstructions of inequality built around the comparative and superlative degreeforms. Cf.: That was the bitterest remark I have ever heard from the man. TheCaucasus is higher than the Rockies.
Thus, both formally and semantically, the oppositional basisof the category of comparison displays a binary nature. In terms of the threedegrees of comparison, on the upper level of presentation the superioritydegrees as the marked member of the opposition are contrasted against thepositive degree as its unmarked member. The superiority degrees, in their turn,form the opposition of the lower level of presentation, where the comparativedegree features the functionally weak member, and the superlative degree,respectively, the strong member. The whole of the double oppositional unity,considered from the semantic angle, constitutes a gradual ternary opposition.
The synthetical forms of comparison in – er and – (e) stcoexist with the analytical forms of comparison effected by the auxiliariesmore and most. The analytical forms of comparison perform a double function. Onthe one hand, they are used with the evaluative adjectives that, due to theirphonemic structure (two-syllable words with the stress on the first syllableending in other grapho-phonemic complexes than – er, – y, – le, – ow or wordsof more than two-syllable composition) cannot normally take the syntheticalforms of comparison. In this respect, the analytical comparison forms are incategorial complementary distribution with the synthetical comparison forms. Onthe other hand, the analytical forms of comparison, as different from thesynthetical forms, are used to express emphasis, thus complementing thesynthetical forms in the sphere of this important stylistic connotation. Cf.:The audience became more and more noisy, and soon the speaker's words weredrowned in the general hum of voices.
The structure of the analytical degrees of comparison ismeaningfully overt; these forms are devoid of the feature of «semanticidiomatism» characteristic of some other categorial analytical forms, such as,for instance, the forms of the verbal perfect. For this reason the analyticaldegrees of comparison invite some linguists to call in question their claim toa categorial status in English grammar.
In particular, scholars point out the following two factorsin support of the view that the combinations of more/most with the basic formof the adjective are not the analytical expressions of the morphologicalcategory of comparison, but free syntactic constructions: first, themore/most-combinations are semantically analogous to combinations of less/leastwith the adjective which, in the general opinion, are syntactic combinations ofnotional words; second, the most-combination, unlike the synthetic superlative,can take the indefinite article, expressing not the superlative, but theelative meaning (i.e. a high, not the highest degree of the respective quality).
The reasons advanced, though claiming to be based on ananalysis of actual lingual data, can hardly be called convincing as regardstheir immediate negative purpose.
Let us first consider the use of the most-compilation withthe indefinite article.
This combination is a common means of expressing elativeevaluations of substance properties. The function of the elativemost-construction in distinction to the function of the superlativemost-'construction will be seen from the following examples:
The speaker launched a most significant personal attack onthe Prime Minister. The most significant of the arguments in a dispute is notnecessarily the most spectacular one.
While the phrase «a most significant (personal) attack» inthe first of the two examples gives the idea of rather a high degree of thequality expressed irrespective of any directly introduced or implied comparisonwith other attacks on the Prime Minister, the phrase «the most significant ofthe arguments» expresses exactly the superlative degree of the quality inrelation to the immediately introduced comparison with all the rest of thearguments in a dispute; the same holds true of the phrase «the most spectacularone». It is this exclusion of the outwardly superlative adjective from a comparisonthat makes it into a simple elative, with its most-constituent turned from thesuperlative auxiliary into a kind of a lexical intensifier.
The definite article with the elative most-construction isalso possible, if leaving the elative function less distinctly recognizable (inoral speech the elative most is commonly left unstressed, the absence of stressserving as a negative mark of the elative).
Cf.: I found myself in the most awkward situation, for Icouldn't give a satisfactory answer to any question asked by the visitors.
Now, the synthetically superlative degree, as is known, canbe used in the elative function as well, the distinguishing feature of thelatter being its exclusion from a comparison.
Cf.: Unfortunately, our cooperation with Danny proved theworst experience for both of us. No doubt Mr. Snider will show you hiscollection of minerals with the greatest pleasure.
And this fact gives us a clue for understanding theexpressive nature of the elative superlative as such – the nature that providesit with a permanent grammatico-stylistic status in the language. Indeed, theexpressive peculiarity of the form consists exactly in the immediatecombination of the two features which outwardly contradict each other: Thecategorial form of the superlative on the one hand, and the absence of acomparison on the other.
That the categorical form of the superlative (i.e. thesuperlative with its general functional specification) is essential also forthe expression of the elative semantics can, however paradoxical it mightappear, be very well illustrated by the elative use of the comparative degree.Indeed, the comparative combination featuring the dative comparative degree isconstructed in such a way as to place it in the functional position of unrestrictedsuperiority, i.e. in the position specifically characteristic of thesuperlative.
E.g.: Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to greet you asour guest of honors. There is nothing more refreshing than a good swim.
The parallelism of functions between the two forms ofcomparison (the comparative degree and the superlative degree) in such and likeexamples is unquestionable.
As we see, the elative superlative, though it is not theregular superlative in the grammatical sense, is still a kind of a specific,grammatically featured construction. This grammatical specificationdistinguishes it from common elative constructions which may be generallydefined as syntactic combinations of an intensely high estimation.
E.g.: an extremely important amendment; a matter of exceedingurgency; quite an unparalleled beauty; etc.
Thus, from a grammatical point of view, the elativesuperlative, though semantically it is «elevated», is nothing else but adegraded superlative, and its distinct featuring mark with the analyticalsuperlative degree is the indefinite article: the two forms of the superlativeof different functional purposes receive the two different marks (if not quiterigorously separated in actual uses) by the article determination treatment.
It follows from the above that the possibility of themost-combination to be used with the indefinite article cannot in any way bedemonstrative of its non-grammatical character, since the functions of the twosuperlative combinations in question, the elative superlative and the genuinesuperlative, are different.
Moreover, the use of the indefinite article with thesynthetical superlative in the degraded, dative function is not altogetherimpossible, though somehow such a possibility is bluntly denied by certain grammaticalmanuals.
Cf.: He made a last lame effort to delay the experiment; butBasil was impervious to suggestion.
But there is one more possibility to formally differentiatethe direct and dative functions of the synthetical superlative, namely, by usingthe zero article with the superlative. This latter possibility is noted in somegrammar books. Cf.: Suddenly I was seized with a sensation of deepest regret.
However, the general tendency of expressing the superlativedative meaning is by using the analytical form. Incidentally, in the Russianlanguage the tendency of usage is reverse: it is the synthetical form of theRussian superlative that is preferred in rendering the dative function. Cf.: слушали с живейшиминтересом; повторялась скучнейшая история; попал в глупейшее положение и т.д.
Let us examine now the combinations of less/least with thebasic form of the adjective.
As is well known, the general view of these combinationsdefinitely excludes them from any connection with categorial analytical forms.Strangely enough, this rejectionist view of the «negative degrees of comparison»is even taken to support, not to reject the morphological interpretation of themore/most-combinations.
The corresponding argument in favour of the rejectionistinterpretation consists in pointing out the functional parallelism existingbetween the synthetical degrees of comparison and the more/most-combinationsaccompanied by their complementary distribution, if not rigorously pronounced(the different choice of the forms by different syllabo-phonetical forms ofadjectives). The less/least-combinations, according to this view, areabsolutely incompatible with the synthetical degrees of comparison, since theyexpress not only different, but opposite meanings.
Now, it does not require a profound analysis to see that,from the grammatical point of view, the formula «opposite meaning» amounts toascertaining the categorial equality of the forms compared. Indeed, if twoforms express the opposite meanings, then they can only belong to units of thesame 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 indifferent ways, saying that 'more difficult' is an analytical form, while 'lessdifficult' is not». True, the cited author takes this fact rather asdemonstration that both types of constructions should equally be excluded fromthe domain of analytical forms, but the problem of the categorial status of themore/most-combinations has been analyzed above.
Thus, the less/least-combinations, similar to themore/most-combinations, constitute specific forms of comparison, which may becalled forms of «reverse comparison». The two types of forms cannot besyntagmatically combined in one and the same form of the word, which shows theunity of the category of comparison. The whole category includes not three, butfive different forms, making up the two series – respectively, direct andreverse. Of these, the reverse series of comparison (the reverse superioritydegrees) is of far lesser importance than the direct one, which evidently canbe explained by semantic reasons. As a matter of fact, it is more natural tofollow the direct model of comparison based on the principle of addition ofqualitative quantities than on the reverse model of comparison based on theprinciple of subtraction of qualitative quantities, since subtraction ingeneral is a far more abstract process of mental activity than addition. And,probably, exactly for the same reason the reverse comparatives and superlativesare rivaled in speech by the corresponding negative syntactic constructions.
Having considered the characteristics of the category ofcomparison, we can see more clearly the relation to this category of someusually non-comparable evaluative adjectives.
Outside the immediate comparative grammatical change of theadjective stand such evaluative adjectives as contain certain comparative Semiticelements in their semantic structures. In particular, as we have mentionedabove, here belong adjectives that are themselves grading marks of evaluation.Another group of evaluative non-comparables is formed by adjectives ofindefinitely moderated quality, or, tentatively, «moderating qualifiers», suchas whitish, tepid, half-ironical, semi-detached, etc. But the most peculiarlexemic group of non-comparables is made up by adjectives expressing thehighest degree of a respective quality, which words can tentatively be called «adjectivesof extreme quality», or «extreme qualifiers», or simply «extremals».
The inherent superlative semantics of extremals is emphasizedby the definite article normally introducing their neural combinations, exactlysimilar to the definite article used with regular collocations of thesuperlative degree. Cf.: The ultimate outcome of the talks was encouraging. Thefinal decision has not yet been made public.
On the other hand, due to the tendency of colloquial speechto contrastive variation, such extreme qualifiers can sometimes be modified byintensifying elements. Thus, «the final decision» becomes «a very finaldecision»; «the ultimate rejection» turns into «rather an ultimate rejection»; «thecrucial role» is made into «quite a crucial role», etc.
As a result of this kind of modification, the highest gradeevaluative force of these words is not strengthened, but, on the contrary,weakened; the outwardly extreme qualifiers become degraded extreme qualifiers,even in this status similar to the regular categorial superlatives degraded intheir relative use.
Conclusion
In the conclusion of my work, I would like to say some wordsaccording the done investigation.
The main part of my work consists of following items:
· «Definition of the Term Adjectives», as it is seen from thetitle in this part I gave the definition to the term adjective.
· «How Do Adjectives Make Speech More Expressive?» in thisparagraph I described the role of adjectives in English language
· Grammatical overview of English Adjectives. Thispartcontains description of adjectives from the grammatical point of view, andclassification of adjectives from the same point.
· In the last paragraph «Degrees of Comparison of Adjectives»I described the only grammatical category of English adjectives.
Standing on such ground I will add that investigation in thequestions dealt with English adjectives is not finished yet, so we willcontinue it while writing our qualification work.
I hope that my course paper will arise the sincere interestof students and teachers to the problem of adjectives in contemporary English.
Bibliography
1. B. Ilyish, The Structure of Modern English.
2. V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Iofik» ModernEnglish language» (Theoretical course grammar) Moscow, 1956 y.
3. Gordon E.M. The Use of adjectives in modern English.
4. М.М. Галииская.«Иностранные языки в высшей школе», вып. 3, М., 1964.
5. Г.Н. Воронцова.Очерки по грамматике английского языка. М., 1960
6. O.Jespersen. Essentials of English Grammar. N.Y., 1938
7. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В.,Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английскогоязыка. – М., 1981. – 285 c.
8. Ch. Barber. Linguisticchange in Present-Day English. Edinburgh, 1964
9. The Structure ofAmerican English. New York, 1958.
10. World BookEncyclopedia Vol.1 NY. 1993 pp.298–299
11. Internethttp://madrasati2010.bravehost.com/adj.htm
12. Internethttp://www.vestnik.vsu.ru
13. Internet:http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/adjectives/theory.htm
14. Inbternet:http://www.englishlanguage.ru/main/definitearticle.htm