It has been a long debated question how many articles there are in English. Obviously there are only two material articles, the definite article the and the indefinite article a (an). The distinction thus is between, for instance, the language and a language. However, the noun language, and indeed many other nouns, are also used without any article, as in the sentence Language is a means of communication. It is obvious that the absence of the article in this sentence is in itself a means of showing that "language in general", and not any specific language (such as English, or French, etc.), is meant. Hence we may say that there are three variants: (1) the language, (2) a language, (3) language. Now the question arises, how this third variant is to be treated. The older grammatical tradition described it as "omission of the article", which is obviously inadequate, since there is not the slightest reason to believe that the article in such cases was ever "omitted". Another view is that we should describe this as "absence of the article", and sometimes this notion is made more precise and the phenomenon is called "meaningful absence of article". 1 A third view, which has been gaining ground lately, is that the very absence of the article is a special kind of article, which is then termed "zero article". According to this view, then, there would be three articles in English: definite, indefinite, and zero.
This idea of a zero article takes its origin in the notion of "zero morpheme", which has been applied to certain forms in inflected languages, — namely to forms having no ending and differing by this very absence from other forms of the same word, which have each their individual ending. A case in point in Russian is the genitive plural of some nouns (chiefly of the feminine gender), e. g. рук, which is characterised as a special form by the absence of any ending, as distinct from nominative singular рука, genitive singu-
1 See, for example, Т. Н. Сергеева, О значащем отсутствии артикля перед именами существительными в современном английском языке. Иностранные языки в школе, 1953, № 1.
Number and Meaning of Articles 51
lar руки, dative plural рукам, etc. The notion of "zero morpheme" may also be applied in English, for instance, to the singular form of nouns (room) as distinct from the plural form with its -s -inflection. If, therefore, we were to interpret the article as a morpheme, the idea of a zero article would make no difficulty. If, on the other hand, we take the article to be a word, the idea of a "zero word" would entail some difficulty. It has been pointed out that the notion of a "zero copula" has been applied to such Russian sentences as он здоров, where there is no verb. In this sentence the present tense is implied as distinct from он был здоров and он будет здоров, where the past or future tense is expressed by a form of the verb быть. However, in this case it is not a "zero copula", but a "zero form" of the copula быть. We might thus formulate the following tense system of this copula: present tense — "zero", past tense был, future tense будет. So even in this particular case the notion of a "zero word" seems very doubtful. Still more doubtful is the notion "zero" with reference to the English article, if the article is a word. We will therefore proceed on the assumption that the notion "zero article" is only possible if the article is not a word.
The two main views of the article are, then, these: (1) The article is a word (possibly a separate part of speech) and the collocation "article + noun" is a phrase (if of a peculiar kind). (2) The article is a form element in the system of the noun; it is thus a kind of morpheme, or if a word, an auxiliary word of the same kind as the auxiliary verbs. In that case the phrase "article + noun" is a morphological formation similar to the formation "auxiliary verb +.+ infinitive or participle", which is an analytical form of the verb. 1
Now, the very fact that two such widely divergent views of the article are possible shows that there are some quite peculiar difficulties here. Besides those already mentioned, there is the problem of the meaning of each article: we must find out whether it has one or several meanings, each of them appearing in a different context.
We can illustrate this problem by comparing, for example, the two sentences: (1) The dog has come home and (2) The dog is a domestic animal. Of course it is at once obvious that the dog in the former sentence means one individual dog, whereas the dog in the latter sentence means the dog in general, as a zoological species. The question, then, is whether the article itself has two distinct meanings (if so, the second of these is termed "the generic article") or whether the meaning of the article is the same in both
1 This view of the article has of late been emphatically stated once more. See Т. В. Строева и Л. Р. Зиндер, Грамматическая категория соотнесенности имени существительного в немецком языке. Проблемы языкознания. Учёные записки ЛГУ им. А. А. Жданова, Серия филол. наук, вып. 60. 1961, стр. 218—232.
62 The Article
sentences, and the difference in meaning between them depends on some other factor.
If we endorse the first view, we shall say that the definite article has at least two distinct meanings, viz. (1) it means that an object is singled out from all objects of the same class, (2) it means that the whole class of objects, as distinct from other classes, is referred to.
If we endorse the second view, we shall say that the definite article has one meaning only, viz. that of something singled out from other entities. Now, whether the essence thus singled out is a separate object or a whole class depends not on the article at all but on the other elements in the sentence, usually on the predicate.
Reverting to the two sentences, (i) The dog has come home and (2) The dog is a domestic animal, we shall see that each of the predicates has several peculiarities which influence the meaning of the sentence one way or another. Let us analyse each of these. First, the grammatical peculiarities. In (1) the predicate is a verb in the present perfect tense, in (2) it is a group "link verb + predicative", and the link verb is in the present tense. That of course would not in itself be sufficient to show the different meanings of the sentences, but it does give a certain indication this way: the verb in the present perfect tense is more likely than not to express a concrete action (i. e. one that has taken place once), while the group "link verb in the present tense + predicative" is very likely to express some general characteristic.
Now, these grammatical points are supplemented by some lexical points, which make the difference quite clear. In (1) the verb come and the adverb home denote a concrete physical action and the place to which it is directed, while in (2) the predicative a domestic animal 1denotes a zoological idea and thus proves that by the dog is meant not an individual dog but the whole species. According to this view, then, the meaning of the definite article itself is the same in both sentences, and the difference proceeds from the peculiarities of the predicates and the words expressing them.
Which of the two views is the more convincing one? Both views seem to be defensible, and the decision will have to be made on the ground of some guiding principle.
Such a principle may be that of the invariable, i. e. of a stable element in the meaning of a word preserved throughout all the changes and combinations in which the word may be found. This principle of the invariable has been recently very forcefully defended by A. Isachenko in his paper on grammatical meaning.2 The
1 We will not dwell here on the syntactic problem concerning the place of the attribute domestic within the predicative phrase. This will be considered in Chapter XXVIII (see p. 223).
2 See А. В. Исаченко, О грамматическом значении. Вопросы языкознания. 1961, № 1.
Number and Meaning of Articles 53
principle may be briefly formulated in this way: "State an invariable wherever possible," or negatively in this way: "Do not state differences wherever this is not strictly necessary." In short, the principle amounts to this. Whenever a word, or a word-form, appears to have different meanings in different contexts, look for that element of its meaning which is always there and does not depend on any context: that is the invariable. If we adhere to this view (as it appears we should) we will say that there is no difference in the meaning of the definite article between the sentences The dog has come home and The dog is a domestic animal; the difference proceeds from other sources, as we have explained above. It is obvious, however, that not everybody will accept the principle of the invariable, and for those who will not do so, the question of the meaning of the definite article will appear in a different light. The same may be said about the indefinite article. If we compare the two sentences, (1) There is a hill behind our house, and (2) A hill is the opposite of a valley, 1 the question will arise, whether the indefinite article with the noun hill has different meanings in the two sentences. If we think it has, we shall say that in
(1) it serves to denote an individual object, without reference to its individual peculiarities, and in (2) any object of a given class. If, on the other hand, we endorse the principle of the invariable, the article will be said to have the same meaning of indefiniteness in both sentences, and the difference in meaning will have to be sought elsewhere. We shall first of all note the different types of predicate in the two sentences. In (1) we have the predicate there is, 2 in (2) the group "link verb + predicative", and the predicative is a noun. There is, besides, an adverbial modifier in (1) and an object in (2). From the lexical point of view, it is important to note that in (1) we find three words with a meaning pointing to a concrete situation, viz. behind, denoting a relation in space, house, and especially our. In (2), on the other hand, there is the group the opposite of a valley, which expresses some general notion, not restricted to any concrete position in space or time. The indefinite article before valley is of course quite parallel to that before hill, and they are bound to be used in quite the same way. All these peculiarities in
(2) point to the sentence having a general meaning, i. e. expressing a definition. Such, then, are the factors on which the general meaning of each sentence and the use of the indefinite article depend. Taking this line, then, we should say that the invariable in the indefinite article is its meaning of taking an object without its
1 Example given by H. Sweet (A New English Grammar, Part II, § 2044).
2 we need not discuss here the various problems connected with the expression there is.
54 The Article
individual peculiarities. Whether the noun used with this article is used to denote "a certain hill" or "any hill", is outside the meaning of the article itself, and depends on a series of different factors, which we have tried to point out. It must be emphasised, of course, that if the principle of the invariable is not accepted the result of the analysis will be different.
In coming now to the difference in meaning between the definite and the indefinite article, we should start by comparing two sentences which are exactly alike in everything except that one has the definite article where the other has the indefinite. We ought to find several pairs of this kind, and then try to get at the essence of the difference between them. So let us take these two, in the first place: Give me a newspaper, please! and Give me the newspaper, please! Here the difference is obvious: the one sentence means, 'Give me some newspaper, no matter which', and the other means, 'Give me that particular newspaper that you are reading at the moment, or the one that is lying on the table, or the one that you had in your hand as you came in', etc., depending on the situation. Of course many similar pairs of sentences might be found. Here, then, the difference is that between "individual object with its own characteristics", and "some object belonging to that particular class of objects". This may indeed be called the difference between definite and indefinite in the usual sense of the words.
However, this distinction will not apply to all cases and we must proceed to look at the sentences where the line of distinction is of another kind. Let us now take these two sentences, The door opened, and the young man came in, and The door opened, and a young man came in. We need not deny that at the bottom of this distinction there is one between "definite" and "indefinite"; however, another element has come in here, which may be briefly described like this. We can only say The door opened, and the young man came in, if we knew in advance that the person standing, say, in the corridor was a young man; if there was a knock at the door, and we did not know who had knocked, and we said, "Come in," we can only say, The door opened, and a young man came in, which might be made more explicit in the following way, ...and the person who came in proved to be a young man (implying, not an old man, not a young girl, etc.). Thus the fact that it was a young man would be new, it would be the central point of the sentence. Coming back now to the sentence with the definite article, we can say that its meaning is approximately this, The door opened, and the young man (did not stay out but) came in'. Here, then, the central point would be that he came in. 1 Now, this element of the sentence which
1 In Russian, this difference would be expressed by word order. Compare Дверь открылась, и молодой человек вошел and Дверь открылась, и вошел молодой человек.
Number and Meaning of Articles 55
is the central point may be said to correspond to the semantic predicate, or the rheme. 1 Then the indefinite article, as opposed to the definite article in sentences of this kind, would be a means of expressing the semantic predicate of the sentence. How should we then define its meaning? To use the simplest words possible, we might say that the indefinite article expresses what is new, and the definite article expresses what is known already, or at least what is not presented as new. This opposition would then be superimposed on that between definite and indefinite.
To make the point quite clear, let us consider two more sentences. Let us assume that we are speaking about what happened in a classroom during a lesson: The door opened and a teacher came in. — The door opened and the headmaster came in. In both cases we did not know in advance who was coming, we only learnt it when the door opened. We would then say, ...a teacher came in, but not ...a headmaster came in. How are we to account for the difference? Obviously the reason is this. There are many teachers in a school, but only one headmaster. Therefore the sentence The door opened, and a headmaster came in would have no reasonable sense. Apparently, the idea of definiteness (there being only one headmaster in every school) takes the upper hand and the idea of newness is not expressed at all. Thus, the sentence The headmaster came in, which in this case corresponds to the Russian вошел директор, might, in another context, correspond to the Russian директор вошел: in that case came in, and not the headmaster, would be the semantic predicate.
Let us now see in what relation the absence of the article stands to the meanings of the definite and the indefinite article.
When we consider the absence of the article, we have to distinguish between the singular and the plural number. Broadly speaking, the absence of the article with a noun in the plural corresponds to the indefinite article with that noun in the singular, whereas the absence of the article with a noun in the singular stands apart and does not correspond to anything in the plural. 2
We will first consider the absence of the article with a noun in the singular and start with nouns which can equally be used with the definite and the indefinite article and without any article. One of these is the noun language. We take three sentences: Language is a means of communication. English is the foreign language I know best. Everyone must study a foreign language. The difference here is obvious enough. Language without article does not refer to any one language (Russian, English, German, etc.) but to the general
1 This question will be dealt with at some length in Chapter XXV.
2 As to the first part of this statement, it should be added that the pronouns some and any may also correspond in the plural to the indefinite article in the singular.
56 The Article
idea of that means of communication. Compare also the following three sentences: He has eaten the egg. He has eaten an egg. He has egg on his sleeve. In the latter sentence, what is meant is not a "unit", an oval-shaped hen's egg, but some "material", which happens to have stuck to his sleeve. Similar observations might be made on a number of other nouns.
From this we may also draw some conclusions about nouns which cannot be used with the indefinite article. Compare: Water boils at 100° centigrade and The water is boiling; Snow is white and The snow has melted. In each of these pairs, the first sentence expresses a general truth, without reference to any particular occasion, while the second expresses a concrete occurrence at a certain moment (this is seen from the form of the verb used in each case). The noun water without any article is the name of the substance in general, whereas with the article it denotes a certain quantity of that substance found at a certain concrete place. The same of course applies to the noun snow. The indefinite article is not possible with these nouns.
The absence of the article with a noun in the plural, as we have said, corresponds to a certain extent to the indefinite article with the noun in the singular. However, this is far from being always the case. This may be shown by some very simple examples. If we take, for instance, the sentence I have read a novel by Thackeray and if we want to change it in such a way as to show that more than one novel is meant we will of course say I have read some novels by Thackeray, i. e. we shall have to use the word some, and not merely drop the article. Though the word some is not an article, it does come close in meaning to the indefinite article in one of its uses.
The absence of the article with a noun in the plural is the only possibility in sentences expressing general statements, such as, Dogs are domestic animals, or Goose quills were in common use formerly. The article is also absent in such sentences as, Pencils, pens, and sheets of paper were strewn all over the table, where indefinitely large quantities are meant.
Such would seem to be the main factors determining the use of the definite or indefinite article and the absence of the article. They do not cover all possible cases, and a considerable number of examples will be found to He outside the sphere of the grammatical system and to be due to occasional causes which sometimes remain obscure. To give only a few examples, if a noun is modified by the adjective wrong meaning 'not the one needed", the definite article is always used with it, as in I took the wrong bus, or He walked in the wrong direction. The underlying idea seems to be that there were two alternatives, the one right, and the other wrong, and the wrong one happened to be chosen. This, however, is not quite
Number and Meaning of Articles 57
convincing, since, for example, in the case of buses, there often would be more than one bus line which might prove "wrong". Such peculiar cases do not easily fit into any system.
Another peculiar case is that of the absence of the article with nouns used in pairs. A typical example is the sentence In the quiet, quaintly-named streets, in town-mead and market place, in the lord's mill beside the stream, in the bell that swung out its summons to the crowded borough-mote, in merchant-gild and church-gild and craft-gild, lay the life of Englishmen who were doing more than knight and baron to make England what she is... (J. R. GREEN) No article is found here either with the noun knight or with the noun baron. If only one of these nouns had been used, the article could not possibly be absent. This also applies to the other nouns in this sentence, and this usage may be found elsewhere. It appears to be strictly literary.
There are many other special cases defying grammatical analysis, such as the use of the definite article with certain geographical names, etc.
Having considered the main meanings of the articles and the main factors determining their use, we will now look into the question of the essence of the article and its place in the English language.
The question arises whether the group "article + noun" can be a form of the noun in the same way as, for example, the group will speak is a form of the verb speak. If we were to take that view, some nouns would have three forms, two of them analytical, e. g. room, the room, a room; while other nouns would have two forms, one of them analytical, e. g. water, the water, etc. It must be said that the problem is hard to solve, as unmistakable objective criteria are missing. There seems to be nothing to prevent us from thinking that a room is an analytical form of the noun room, and there seems to be nothing to compel us to think so. If we endorse the view that the group "article + noun" is an analytical form of the noun we shall have to set up a grammatical category in the noun which is expressed by one or the other article or by its absence. That category might be called determination. In that case we could also find a "zero article". If, on the other hand, we stick to the view that the group "article + noun" is not an analytical form of the noun and the group is a peculiar type of phrase, no "zero article" is possible, and the meanings of each of the two articles (definite and indefinite) are to be taken as individual meanings of words. The choice between the two alternatives remains a matter of opinion, rather than admitting of a binding conclusion. On the whole the second view (denying the analytical forms of nouns) seems preferable, but we cannot, for the time being at least, prove that it is the only correct view of the English article.
Chapter V
THE ADJECTIVE
There is not much to be said about the English adjective from the morphological point of view. As is well known, it has neither number, nor case, nor gender distinctions. Some adjectives have, however, degrees of comparison, which make part of the morphological system of a language. Thus, the English adjective differs materially not only from such highly inflected languages as Russian, Latin, and German, where the adjectives have a rather complicated system of forms, but even from Modern French, which has preserved number and gender distinctions to the present day (cf. masculine singular grand, masculine plural grands, feminine singular grande, feminine plural grandes 'large').
By what signs do we, then, recognise an adjective as such in Modern English? In most cases this can be done only by taking into account semantic and syntactical phenomena. But in some cases, that is, for certain adjectives, derivative suffixes 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 certain proof of the word being an adjective, because the suffix may also make part of a word belonging to another part of speech. Thus, the suffix -ful would seem to be typically adjectival, as is its antonym -less. In fact we find the suffix -ful in adjectives often enough, as in beautiful, useful, purposeful, meaningful, etc. But alongside of these we also find spoonful, mouthful, handful, etc., which are nouns.
On the whole, the number of adjectives which can be recognised as such by their suffix seems to be insignificant as compared with the mass of English adjectives.
The only morphological problem concerning adjectives is, then, that of degrees of comparison.
DEGREES OF COMPARISON
The first question which arises here is, how many degrees of comparison has the English adjective (and, for that matter, the adjective in other languages, such as Russian, Latin, or German)? If we take, for example, the three forms of an English adjective: large, larger, (the) largest, shall we say that they are, all three of them, degrees of comparison? In that case we ought to term them positive, comparative, and superlative. Or shall we say that only the latter two are degrees of comparison (comparative and superlative), whereas the first (large), does not express any idea of comparison and is therefore not a degree of comparison at all? Both views have found their advocates in grammatical theory. Now, if we define a
Degrees of Comparison 59
degree of comparison as a form expressing comparison of one object or objects with another in respect of a certain property, it would seem that the first of the three forms (large) should not be included, as it does not express any comparison. Then we should have only two degrees of comparison larger, (the) largest, and a form standing apart, coinciding with the stem from which the degrees of comparison are formed, and which may be described as the basic form.
However, in a very few adjectives the basic form differs from the stem in sound. This difference is of some importance, though it is not reflected in the spelling.
This applies to two adjectives in -ng, namely long and young; their stems are [loηg-] and [jAηg-] and the degrees of comparison formed from these stems are, longer ['loηgэ], longest ['loηgist] and younger [jAηgэ], youngest ['jAηgist]. The basic forms, on the other hand, are long [loη] and young [jAη], without the final [-g] which is impossible after [-η] in modern literary English. 1
A somewhat similar phenomenon is found in adjectives ending in -r or -re, such as poor, pure, rare, sure. Their stems are [рuэr-], [pjuэr-], [reэr-], [Suэr-] and the suffixes of the degrees of comparison are added on to these stems, whereas the basic form loses its final [-r], unless it is followed without pause by a word beginning with a vowel, as in the phrases poor idea, rare image, and the like.
Now it is well known that not every adjective has degrees of comparison. This may depend on two factors. One of these is not grammatical, but semantic. Since degrees of comparison express a difference of degree in the same property, only those adjectives admit of degrees of comparison which denote properties capable of appearing in different degrees. Thus, it is obvious that, for example, the adjective middle has no degrees of comparison. The same might be said about many other adjectives, such as blind, deaf, dead, etc. However, this should not be taken too absolutely. Occasionally we may meet with such a sentence as this: You cannot be deader than dead. In a novel by E. Hemingway the hero compares the ways one and the same word sounds in different languages: Take dead, mort, muerto, and todt. Todt was the deadest of them all. But as a rule adjectives having such meanings do not appear in forms of comparison.2
1 In some dialects (more especially in the North) final [g] may be pronounced after [g].
2 It is sometimes stated that qualitative adjectives form degrees of comparison, whereas relative adjectives (such as wooden, woollen, Asian, oriental) do not. But the division of adjectives into qualitative and relative is not grammatical but a semantic division, and some qualitative adjectives have no degrees of comparison either, e.g. perfect, main, etc.
60 The Adjective
A more complex problem in the sphere of degrees of comparison is that of the formations more difficult, (the) most difficult, or more beautiful, (the) most beautiful. The question is this: is more difficult an analytical comparative degree of the adjective difficult? In that case the word more would be an auxiliary word serving to make up that analytical form, and the phrase would belong to the sphere of morphology. Or is more difficult a free phrase, not different in its essential character from the phrase very difficult or somewhat difficult"? In that case the adjective difficult would have no degrees of comparison at all (forming degrees of comparison of this adjective by means of the inflections -er, -est isimpossible), and the whole phrase would be a syntactical formation. The traditional view held both by practical and theoretical grammars until recently was that phrases of this type were analytical degrees of comparison. Recently, however, the view has been put forward that they do not essentially differ from phrases of the type very difficult, which, of course, nobody would think of treating as analytical forms.
Let us examine the arguments that have been or may be put forward in favour of one and the other view.
The view that formations of the type more difficult are analytical degrees of comparison may be supported by the following considerations: (1) The actual meaning of formations like more difficult, (the) most difficult does not differ from that of the degrees of comparison larger, (the) largest. (2) Qualitative adjectives, like difficult, express properties which may be present in different degrees, and therefore they are bound to have degrees of comparison.
The argument against such formations being analytical degrees of comparison would run roughly like this. No formation should be interpreted as an analytical form unless there are compelling reasons for it, and if there are considerations contradicting such a view. Now, in this particular case there are such considerations: (1) The words more and most have the same meaning in these phrases as in other phrases in which they may appear, e. g. more time, most people, etc. (2) Alongside of the phrases more difficult, (the) most difficult there are also the phrases less difficult, (the) least difficult, and 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. Besides, the very fact that more and less, (the) most and (the) least can equally well combine with difficult, would seem to show that they are free phrases and none of them is an analytical form. The fact that more difficult stands in the same sense relation to difficult as larger to large is of course certain, but it should have no impact on the interpretation of the phrases more difficult, (the) most difficult from a grammatical viewpoint.
Degrees of Comparison 61
Taking now a general view of both lines of argument, we can say that, roughly speaking, considerations of meaning tend towards recognising such formations as analytical forms, whereas strictly grammatical considerations lead to the contrary view. It must be left to every student to decide what the way out of this dilemma should be. It seems, on the whole, that the tendency towards making linguistics something like an exact science which we are witnessing to-day should make us prefer the second view, based on strictly grammatical criteria.
If that view is adopted the sphere of adjectives having degrees of comparison in Modern English will be very limited: besides the limitations imposed by the meaning of the adjectives (as shown above), there will be the limitation depending on the ability of an adjective to take the suffixes -er and -est. 1
A few adjectives do not, as is well known, form any degrees of comparison by means of inflections. Their degrees of comparison are derived from a different root. These are good, better, best; bad, worse, worst, and a few more. Should these formations be acknowledged as suppletive forms of the adjectives good, bad, etc., or should they not? There seems no valid reason for denying them that status. The relation good: better = large: larger is indeed of the same kind as the relation go: went = live: lived, where nobody has expressed any doubt about went being a suppletive past tense form of the verb go. Thus, it is clear enough that there is every reason to take better, worse, etc., as suppletive degrees of comparison to the corresponding adjectives.
The Definite Article with the Superlative
When giving above the forms of the superlative degree we always added the definite article in parentheses. We did so because it remains somewhat doubtful whether the article belongs to the noun defined by the adjective in the superlative degree, or whether it makes part and parcel of the superlative form itself. To find an answer to this question, it is, apparently, necessary to know whether the definite article is ever used with a superlative form where it cannot be said to belong to a noun. Some examples, rare though they are, go some way to prove that the definite article can at least be said to have a tendency to become an appendix of the superlative form itself, rather than of the noun to which the adjective in the superlative degree is an attribute.
1 We will not discuss here the question of what adjectives can take these suffixes, since we could not add anything to what is common knowledge.
62 The Adjective
This appears to be quite incontrovertible in the few cases where the definite article is joined to the superlative form of an adverb, so that there is no noun to which it might, directly or indirectly, be said to belong. Here is an example from a nineteenth century novel: The world hears most of the former, and talks of them the most, but I doubt whether the latter are not the more numerous. (TROLLOPE) There are two phrases including a superlative form here, namely, hears most of the former, and talks of them the most. While there might be some doubt about the grammatical status of the first most (whether it is rather an object, that is, a substantivised adjective, or an adverbial modifier, that is, an adverb), the second most gives rise to no such doubts: the verb talk cannot take any object of that kind. So the most is bound to be an adverb and in any case there is no noun whatever to which the article might be attached. So we must draw the conclusion that the definite article has here become an integral part of the adverb's superlative form. Such instances are rare, but they do at least show that there is a tendency for the article to become an integral part of the superlative form, whether of an adjective or of an adverb.
Special Meanings of the Superlative
The basic meaning of the superlative is that of a degree of a property surpassing all the other objects mentioned or implied.
However, there are cases when the meaning is different and merely a very high degree of a property is meant, without any comparison with other objects possessing that property. Thus, in the sentence It is with the greatest pleasure that we learn of... the phrase the greatest pleasure does not mean that that particular pleasure was greater than all other pleasures, but merely that it was very great. The same may be said of the sentence In Brown's room was the greatest disorder and of other sentences of this kind. This meaning of the form is usually described as the elative. 1 It can be recognised as such only owing to the context, and it seems to have (in some cases, at least) a peculiar stylistic colouring, being essentially uncolloquial.
The forms of the superlative degree are never used with the indefinite article. The phrase "most + adjective", on the other hand, may be used with the indefinite article and expresses in that case a very high degree of a property, without implying any comparison, e. g. a most satisfactory result. The meaning of the phrase is thus the same as that of the superlative degree in its elative application.
1 A similar phenomenon is also found in other languages, for instance in Russian: с величайшим удовольствием; философ, величайшего ума человек (ЧЕХОВ), etc.
Substantivisation of Adjectives, 68
The possibility of using the phrase "most + adjective" with the indefinite article seems to be an additional argument in favour of the view that this is not an analytical form of the superlative but just a free phrase.
