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)st coexist with the
analytical forms of comparison effected by the auxiliaries more and most.
The analytical forms of comparison perform a double function. On the one
hand, they are used with the evaluative adjectives that, due to their
phonemic structure (two-syllable words with the stress on the first
syllable ending in other grapho-phonemic complexes than -er, -y, -le, -ow
or words of more than two-syllable composition) cannot normally take the
synthetical forms of comparison. In this respect, the analytical comparison
forms are in categorial complementary distribution with the synthetical
comparison forms. On the other hand, the analytical forms of comparison, as
different from the synthetical forms, are used to express emphasis, thus
complementing the synthetical forms in the sphere of this important
stylistic connotation. Cf.: The audience became more and more noisy, and
soon the speaker's words were drowned in the general hum of voices.
The structure of the analytical degrees of comparison is meaningfully
overt; these forms are devoid of the feature of "semantic idiomatism"
characteristic of some other categorial analytical forms, such as, for
instance, the forms of the verbal perfect. For this reason the analytical
degrees of comparison invite some linguists to call in question their claim
to a categorial status in English grammar.
In particular, scholars point out the following two factors in support
of the view that the combinations of more/most with the basic form of the
adjective are not the analytical expressions of the morphological category
of comparison, but free syntactic constructions: first, the more/most-
combinations are semantically analogous to combinations of less/least with
the adjective which, in the general opinion, are syntactic combinations of
notional words; second, the most-combination, unlike the synthetic
superlative, can take the indefinite article, expressing not the
superlative, but the elative meaning (i.e. a high, not the highest degree
of the respective quality).
The reasons advanced, though claiming to be based on an analysis of
actual lingual data, can hardly be called convincing as regards their
immediate negative purpose.
Let us first consider the use of the most-combillation with the
indefinite article.
This combination is a common means of expressing elative evaluations
of substance properties. The function of the elative most-construction in
distinction to the function of the superlative most-'construction will be
seen from the following examples:
The speaker launched a most significant personal attack on the Prime
Minister. The most significant of the arguments in a dispute is not
necessarily the most spectacular one.
While the phrase "a most significant (personal) attack" in the first
of the two examples gives the idea of rather a high degree of the quality
expressed irrespective of any directly introduced or implied comparison
with other attacks on the Prime Minister, the phrase "the most significant
of the arguments" expresses exactly the superlative degree of the quality
in relation to the immediately introduced comparison with all the rest of
the arguments in a dispute; the same holds true of the phrase "the most
spectacular one". It is this exclusion of the outwardly superlative
adjective from a comparison that makes it into a simple elative, with its
most-constituent turned from the superlative auxiliary into a kind of a
lexical intensifier.
The definite article with the elative most-construction is also
possible, if leaving the elative function less distinctly recognizable (in
oral speech the elative most is commonly left unstressed, the absence of
stress serving as a negative mark of the elative). Cf.: I found myself in
the most awkward situation, for I couldn't give a satisfactory answer to
any question asked by the visitors.
Now, the synthetical superlative degree, as is known, can be used in
the elative function as well, the distinguishing feature of the latter
being its exclusion from a comparison.
Cf.:
Unfortunately, our cooperation with Danny proved the worst experience for
both of us. No doubt Mr. Snider will show you his collection of minerals
with the greatest pleasure.
And this fact gives us a clue for understanding the expressive nature
of the elative superlative as such — the nature that provides it with a
permanent grammatico-stylistic status in the language. Indeed, the
expressive peculiarity of the form consists exactly in the immediate
combination of the two features which outwardly contradict each other:
the categorial form of the superlative on the one hand, and the absence of
a comparison on the other.
That the categorial form of the superlative (i.e. the superlative with
its general functional specification) is essential also for the expression
of the elative semantics can, however paradoxical it might appear, be very
well illustrated by the elative use of the comparative degree. Indeed, the
comparative combination featuring the dative comparative degree is
constructed in such a way as to place it in the functional position of
unrestricted superiority, i.e. in the position specifically characteristic
of the superlative. E.g.:
Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to greet you as our guest of honour.
There is nothing more refreshing than a good swim.
The parallelism of functions between the two forms of comparison (the
comparative degree and the superlative degree) in such and like examples is
unquestionable.
As we see, the elative superlative, though it is not the regular
superlative in the grammatical sense, is still a kind of a specific,
grammatically featured construction. This grammatical specification
distinguishes it from common elative constructions which may be generally
defined as syntactic combinations of an intensely high estimation. E.g.:
an extremely important amendment; a matter of exceeding urgency; quite an
unparalleled beauty; etc.
Thus, from a grammatical point of view, the elative superlative,
though semantically it is "elevated", is nothing else but a degraded
superlative, and its distinct featuring mark with the analytical
superlative degree is the indefinite article: the two forms of the
superlative of different functional purposes receive the two different
marks (if not quite rigorously separated in actual uses) by the article
determination treatment.
It follows from the above that the possibility of the most-combination
to be used with the indefinite article cannot in any way be demonstrative
of its non-grammatical character, since the functions of the two
superlative combinations in question, the elative superlative and the
genuine superlative, are different.
Moreover, the use of the indefinite article with the synthetical
superlative in the degraded, dative function is not altogether impossible,
though somehow such a possibility is bluntly denied by certain grammatical
manuals. Cf.: He made a last lame effort to delay the experiment; but Basil
was impervious to suggestion.
But there is one more possibility to formally differentiate the direct
and dative functions of the synthetical superlative, namely, by using the
zero article with the superlative. This latter possibility is noted in some
grammar books (Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 85). Cf.: Suddenly I was seized with
a sensation of deepest regret.
However, the general tendency of expressing the superlative dative
meaning is by using the analytical form. Incidentally, in the Russian
language the tendency of usage is reverse: it is the synthetical form of
the Russian superlative that is preferred in rendering the dative function.
Cf.: слушали с живейшим интересом; повторялась скучнейшая история; попал в
глупейшее положение и т.д.
Let us examine now the combinations of less/least with the basic form
of the adjective.
As is well known, the general view of these combinations definitely
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 the more/most-combinations.
The corresponding argument in favour of the rejectionist
interpretation consists in pointing out the functional parallelism existing
between the synthetical degrees of comparison and the more/most-
combinations accompanied by their complementary distribution, if not
rigorously pronounced (the different choice of the forms by different
syllabo-phonetical forms of adjectives). The less/least-combinations,
according to this view, are absolutely incompatible with the synthetical
degrees of comparison, since they express 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 to
ascertaining the categorial equality of the forms compared. Indeed, if two
forms express the opposite meanings, then they can only belong to units of
the same 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 in different ways, saying that 'more difficult' is an analytical
form, while 'less difficult' is not" [Ilyish, 60]. True, the cited author
takes this fact rather as demonstration that both types of constructions
should equally be excluded from the domain of analytical forms, but the
problem of the categorial status of the more/most-combinations has been
analysed above.
Thus, the less/least-combinations, similar to the more/most-
combinations, constitute specific forms of comparison, which may be called
forms of "reverse comparison". The two types of forms cannot be
syntagmatically combined in one and the same form of the word, which shows
the unity of the category of comparison. The whole category includes not
three, but five different forms, making up the two series — respectively,
direct and reverse. Of these, the reverse series of comparison (the reverse
superiority degrees) is of far lesser importance than the direct one, which
evidently can be explained by semantic reasons. As a matter of fact, it is
more natural to follow the direct model of comparison based on the
principle of addition of qualitative quantities than on the reverse model
of comparison based on the principle of subtraction of qualitative
quantities, since subtraction in general is a far more abstract process of
mental activity than addition. And, probably, exactly for the same reason
the reverse comparatives and superlatives are rivalled in speech by the
corresponding negative syntactic constructions.
Having considered the characteristics of the category of comparison,
we can see more clearly the relation to this category of some usually non-
comparable evaluative adjectives.
Outside the immediate comparative grammatical change of the adjective
stand such evaluative adjectives as contain certain comparative sememic
elements in their semantic structures. In particular, as we have mentioned
above, here belong adjectives that are themselves grading marks of
evaluation. Another group of evaluative non-comparables is formed by
adjectives of indefinitely moderated quality, or, tentatively, "moderating
qualifiers", such as whitish, tepid, half-ironical, semi-detached, etc. But
the most peculiar lexemic group of non-comparables is made up by adjectives
expressing the highest degree of a respective quality, which words can
tentatively be called "adjectives of extreme quality", or "extreme
qualifiers", or simply "extremals".
The inherent superlative semantics of extremals is emphasized by the
definite article normally introducing their nounal combinations, exactly
similar to the definite article used with regular collocations of the
superlative degree. Cf.: The ultimate outcome of the talks was encouraging.
The final decision has not yet been made public.
On the other hand, due to the tendency of colloquial speech to
contrastive variation, such extreme qualifiers can sometimes be modified by
intensifying elements. Thus, "the final decision" becomes "a very final
decision"; "the ultimate rejection" turns into "rather an ultimate
rejection"; "the crucial role" is made into "quite a crucial role", etc.
As a result of this kind of modification, the highest grade evaluative
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 in
their elative use.
LITERATURE
Ilyish B. “The structure of modern English”, M, 1971
Bloch M. “The course in the English grammar”, M, 1983
