nonce (see the examples above).
Thus, the introduced distinction between the evaluative and
specificative uses of adjectives, in the long run, emphasizes the fact that
the morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) is
potentially represented in the whole class of adjectives and is
constitutive for it.
Among the words signifying properties of a nounal referent there is a
lexemic set which claims to be recognized as a separate part of speech,
i.e. as a class of words different from 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. In traditional grammar these words were generally
considered under the heading of "predicative adjectives" (some of them also
under the heading of adverbs), since their most typical position in the
sentence is that of a predicative and they are but occasionally used as pre-
positional attributes to nouns.
Notional words signifying states and specifically used as predicatives
were first identified as a separate part of speech in the Russian language
by L. V. Shcherba and V. V. Vinogradov. The two scholars called the newly
identified part of speech the "category of state" (and, correspondingly,
separate words making up this category, "words of the category of state").
Here belong the Russian words mostly ending in -o, but also having other
suffixes: тепло, зябко, одиноко, радостно, жаль, лень, etc. Traditionally
the Russian words of the category of state were considered as constituents
of (he class of adverbs, and they are still considered as such by many
Russian schiolars.
On the analogy of the Russian "category of state", the English
qualifying a-words of the corresponding meanings were subjected to a lexico-
grammatical analysis and given the part-of-speech heading "category of
slate". This analysis was first conducted by B. A. llyish and later
continued by other linguists. The term "words of the category of state",
being rather cumbersome from 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 working in the domain of English, and has found both its
proponents and opponents.
Probably the most consistent and explicit exposition of the part-of-speech
interpretation of statives has been given by B. S. Khaimovich and B. I.
Rogovskaya. Their theses supporting the view in question can be summarized
as follows.
First, the statives, called by the quoted authors "adlinks" (by virtue
of their connection with link-verbs and on the analogy of the term
"adverbs"), are allegedly opposed to adjectives on a purely semantic basis,
since adjectives denote "qualities", and statives-adlinks denote "states".
Second, as different from adjectives, statives-adlinks are characterized by
the specific prefix a-. Third, they allegedly do not possess the category
of the degrees of comparison. Fourth, the combinability of statives-adlinks
is different from that of adjectives in so far as they are not used in the
pre-positional attributive function, i.e. are characterized by the absence
of the right-hand combinability with nouns.
The advanced reasons, presupposing many-sided categorial estimation of
statives, are undoubtedly serious and worthy of note. Still, a closer
consideration of the properties of the analysed lexemic set cannot but show
that, on the whole, the said reasons are hardly instrumental in proving the
main idea, i.e. in establishing the English stative as a separate part of
speech. The re-consideration of the stative on the basis of comparison with
the classical adjective inevitably discloses (lie fundamental relationship
between the two, — such relationship as should be interpreted in no other
terms than identity on the part-of-speech level, though, naturally,
providing for their distinct differentiation on the subclass level.
The first scholar who undertook this kind of re-consideration of the
lexemic status of English statives was L. S. Barkhudarov, and in our
estimation of them we essentially follow 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 participles in adjective-type
functions can express the same, or, more specifically, typologically the
same properties (or "qualities" 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 curiosity — 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 common adjectives in one point
negatively, they basically coincide with them in the other points. As a
matter of fact, statives are not used in attributive pre-position. but,
like adjectives, 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 corresponding to its
combinability patterns, we see that essentially they do not differ from the
functions of the common adjective. 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 different from the
common adjective, is that of the predicative. But then, the important
structural and functional peculiarities 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 functional 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 corresponding 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 adjusting lever stood far more
askew than was allowed by the directions.
Fifth, quantitative considerations, though being a subsidiary 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 number 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 serious
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. Moreover, as is known, there are words of property not
distinguished by this prefix, which display essential functional
