characteristics inherent in the stative set. In particular, here belong
such adjectives as ill, well, glad, sorry, worth (while), subject (to), due
(to), underway, and some others. On the other hand, among the basic
statives we find such as can hardly be analysed into a genuine combination
of the type "prefix + root", because their morphemic parts have become
fused into one indivisible unit in the course of language history, e.g.
aware, afraid, aloof.
Thus, the undertaken semantic and functional analysis shows that
statives, though forming a unified set of words, do not constitute a
separate lexemic class existing in language on exactly the same footing as
the noun, the verb, the adjective, the adverb; rather it should be looked
upon as a subclass within the general class of adjectives. It is
essentially an adjectival subclass, because, due to their peculiar
features, statives are not directly opposed to the notional parts of speech
taken together, but are quite particularly opposed to the rest of
adjectives. It means that the general subcategorization of the class of
adjectives should be effected on the two levels: on the upper level the
class will be divided into the subclass of stative adjectives and common
adjectives; on the lower level the common adjectives fall into qualitative
and relative, which division has been discussed in the foregoing paragraph.
As we see, our final conclusion about the lexico-grammatical nature of
statives appears to have returned them into the lexemic domain in which
they were placed by traditional grammar and from which they were alienated
in the course of subsequent linguistic investigations. A question then
arises, whether these investigations, as well as the discussions
accompanying them, have served any rational purpose at all.
The answer to this question, though, can only be given in the
energetic affirmative. Indeed, all the detailed studies of statives
undertaken by quite a few scholars, all the discussions concerning their
systemic location and other related matters have produced very useful
results, both theoretical and practical.
The traditional view of the stative was not supported by any special
analysis, it was formed on the grounds of mere surface analogies and outer
correlations. The later study of statives resulted in the exposition of
their inner properties, in the discovery of their historical productivity
as a subclass, in their systemic description on the lines of competent
inter-class and inter-level comparisons. And it is due to the undertaken
investigations (which certainly will be continued) that we are now in a
position, though having rejected the fundamental separation of the stative
from the adjective, to name the subclass of statives as one of the
peculiar, idiomatic lexemic features of Modern English.
As is widely known, adjectives display the ability to be easily
substantivized by conversion, i.e. by zero-derivation. Among the noun-
converted adjectives we find both old units, well-established in the system
of lexicon, and also new ones, whose adjectival etymology conveys to the
lexeme the vivid colouring of a new coinage.
For instance, the words a relative or a white or a dear bear an
unquestionable mark of established tradition, while such a noun as a
sensitive used in the following sentence features a distinct flavour of
purposeful conversion: He was a regional man, a man who wrote about
sensitives who live away from the places where things happen.
Compare this with the noun a high in the following example: The
weather report promises a new high in heat and humidity.
From the purely categorial point of view, however, there is no
difference between the adjectives cited in the examples and the ones given
in the foregoing enumeration, since both groups equally express
constitutive categories of the noun, i.e. the number, the case, the gender,
the article determination, and they likewise equally perform normal nounal
functions.
On the other hand, among the substantivized adjectives there is a set
characterized by hybrid lexico-grammatical features, as in the following
examples:
The new bill concerning the wage-freeze introduced by the Labour Government
cannot satisfy either the poor, or the rich (Radio Broadcast). A monster.
The word conveyed the ultimate in infamy and debasement inconceivable to
one not native to the times (J. Vance). The train, indulging all his
English nostalgia for the plushy and the genteel, seemed to him a deceit
(M. Bradbury).
The mixed categorial nature of the exemplified words is evident from
their incomplete presentation of the part-of speech characteristics of
either nouns or adjectives. Like nouns, the words are used in the article
form; like nouns, they express the category of number (in a relational
way); but their article and number forms are rigid, being no subject to the
regular structural change inherent in the normal expression of these
categories. Moreover, being categorially unchangeable, the words convey the
mixed adjectival-nounal semantics of property.
The adjectival-nounal words in question are very specific. They are
distinguished by a high productivity and, like statives, are idiomatically
characteristic of Modern English.
On the analogy of verbids these words might be called "adjectivids",
since they are rather nounal forms of adjectives than nouns as such.
The adjectivids fall into two main grammatical subgroups, namely, the
subgroup pluralia tantum {the English, the rich, the unemployed, the
uninitiated, etc.), and the subgroup singularia tantum (the invisible, the
abstract, the tangible, etc.). Semantically, the words of the first
subgroup express sets of people (personal multitudes), while the words of
the second group express abstract ideas of various types and connotations.
The category of adjectival comparison expresses the quantitative
characteristic of the quality of a nounal referent, i.e. it gives a
relative evaluation of the quantity of a quality. The purely relative
nature of the categorial semantics of comparison is reflected in its name.
The category is constituted by the opposition of the three forms known
under the heading of degrees of comparison: the basic form (positive
degree), having no features of corn" parison; the comparative degree form,
having the feature of restricted .superiority (which limits the comparison
to two elements only); the superlative degree form, having the feature of
unrestricted superiority.
It should be noted that the meaning of unrestricted superiority is in-
built in the superlative degree as such, though in practice this form is
used in collocations imposing certain restrictions on the effected
comparison; thus, the form in question may be used to signify restricted
superiority, 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 shown here
not by the native meaning of the superlative, but by the particular
contextual construction of comparison where the physical strength of one
boy is estimated in relation to that of his companions.
Some linguists approach the number of the degrees of comparison as
problematic on the grounds that the basic form of the adjective does not
express any comparison by itself and therefore should be excluded from the
category. This exclusion would reduce the category to two members only,
i.e. the comparative and superlative degrees.
However, the oppositional interpretation of grammatical categories
underlying our considerations does not admit of such an exclusion; on the
contrary, the non-expression of superiority by the basic form is understood
in the oppositional presentation of comparison as a pre-requisite for the
expression of the category as such. In this expression of the category the
basic form is the unmarked member, not distinguished by any comparison
suffix or comparison auxiliary, while the superiority forms (i.e. the
comparative and superlative) are the marked members, distinguished by the
comparison suffixes or comparison auxiliaries.
That the basic form as the positive degree of comparison does express
this categorial idea, being included in one and the same calegorial series
with the superiority degrees, is clearly shown by its actual uses in
comparative syntactic constructions of equality, as well as comparative
syntactic constructions of negated equality. Cf.: The remark was as bitter
as could be. The Rockies are not so high as the Caucasus.
These constructions are directly correlative with comparative
constructions of inequality built around the comparative and superlative
degree forms. Cf.: That was the bitterest remark I have ever heard from the
man. The Caucasus is higher than the Rockies.
Thus, both formally and semantically, the oppositional basis of the
category of comparison displays a binary nature. In terms of the three
degrees of comparison, on the upper level of presentation the superiority
degrees as the marked member of the opposition are contrasted against the
positive degree as its unmarked member. The superiority degrees, in their
turn, form the opposition of the lower level of presentation, where the
comparative degree features the functionally weak member, and the
