The category of comparison is constituted by the opposition of three forms of the adjective: the positive, the comparative, and the superlative.
Some grammarians have expressed the view that there are only two degrees of comparison.
Otto Jespersen, for instance, argues that the positive degree cannot be regarded as a degree of comparison as it does not convey the idea of comparison.
According to A.I. Smirnitsky, the degrees of comparison include the positive degree and the relative degree which is subdivided into the comparative and the superlative degree.
There are three ways of forming degrees of comparison: synthetic, analytic, and suppletive.
The synthetic way of forming degrees of comparison is by the inflections -er, -est; the analytic way, by placing more and most before the adjective.
The synthetic way is generally used with monosyllabic adjectives and dissyllabic adjectives ending in -y, -ow, -er, -le and those which have the stress on the last syllable.
However, in the dissyllabic group we can observe radical changes: adjectives formerly taking er and est are tending to go over to more and most
e.g. more common, most common; more cloudy, most cloudy; more fussy, most fussy; more cruel, most cruel; more quiet, most quiet; more clever, most clever; more profound, most profound; more simple, most simple; more pleasant, most pleasant all these were normally compared with er and est before the WW II.
All this goes to show that English comparison is getting more and more analytic.
To analytic forms of comparison M. Blokh also attributes less/least combinations. He calls them forms of reverse comparison. By the way, the forms less, least are generally used as an argument against the treatment of more and most as grammatical word-morphemes.
So, for instance, B. Ilyish argues that if less and least are not grammatical word morphemes, more and most are not grammatical word-morphemes either.
As already pointed out, the third way of forming degrees of comparison is by the use of suppletive forms: good _ better, best; bad _ worse, worst; far _ farther/further, farthest/furthest; little _ less, least; much/many _ more, most.
The Adverb
Semantic features. The adverb is usually defined as a word expressing either property of an action, or property of another property, or circumstances in which an action occurs.
However, this definition fails to demonstrate the difference between the adverb and the adjective.
To overcome this drawback, there should be given another definition to the adverb as a notional word denoting a non-substantive property, that is, a property of a non-substantive referent.
This feature sets the adverb apart from the adjective which denotes a substantive property.
Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.
Qualitative adverbs express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs in -ly.
|
|
|
Quantitative adverbs are specific lexical units of semi-functional nature expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities.
They may be subdivided into several sets:
1. Adverbs of high degree ("intensifiers"): very, quite, entirely, utterly, highly, greatly, perfectly, absolutely, strongly, considerably, pretty, much.
2. Adverbs of excessive degree (direct and reverse) also belonging to the broader subclass of intensifiers: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically.
3. Adverbs of unexpected degree: surprisingly, astonishingly, amazingly.
4. Adverbs of moderate degree: fairly, comparatively, relatively, moderately,
rather.
5. Adverbs of low degree: slightly, a little, a bit.
6. Adverbs of approximate degree: almost, nearly.
7. Adverbs of optimal degree: enough, sufficiently, adequately.
8. Adverbs of inadequate degree: insufficiently, intolerably, unbearably, ridiculously.
9. Adverbs of under-degree: hardly, scarcely.
Circumstantial adverbs are also divided into notional and functional.
The functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. They include numerical adverbs, adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of them are used as syntactic connectives and question-forming words (now, here, when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.)
Notional circumstantial adverbs include two basic sets: adverbs of time and adverbs of place: today, tomorrow, already, ever, never, shortly, recently, seldom, early, late; homeward, eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc.
Morphological features. As to their word-building structure adverbs may be non-derived, or simple (e.g. here, there, now, then, so, quick, why, how, where, when, very, rather) and derived (e.g. slowly, sideways, clockwise, homewards, away, ahead, apart, across).
We can also distinguish composite forms and phrasal forms of the adverb: sometimes, nowhere, anyhow; at least, at most, at last, to and fro, upside down.
A prolific source of adverbs is the adjective: many ly adverbs are transformationally related to respective adjectives. The suffix ly is a typical marker of the adverb.
However, many adverbs related to adjectives may not be necessarily used with the suffix ly, e.g. fast, late, hard, high, clean, clear, close, loud, tight, firm, quick, right, sharp, slow, wide, etc.
Special mention should be made of preposition-adverb like elements which form a semantic blend with verbs: to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away, to give over, etc; to set up, to set in, to set forth, to set down, etc.; to get on, to get off, to get through, to get about, etc.
The verb-adverb combination goes by several names: two-part verbs, composite verbs, phrasal verbs.
The verbs in such combinations are mostly one-syllable words; the most common adverbs are those denoting place, e.g. in, out, on, off, over, up, down, through, etc.
Some of the adverbs may be separated by objective complements, e.g. Please hand in your papers. vs. Please hand your papers in. Others are non-separable, e.g. John called on me. vs. *John called me on.
In verb-adverb combinations the second element may:
a) retain its adverbial properties of showing direction (e.g. to go out, to go in, to go away);
b) change the aspect of the verb, i.e. mark the completeness of the process (e.g. to eat to eat up; to stand to stand up; to sit to sit down; to lie to lie down; to shave to shave off; to speak to speak out);
|
|
|
c) intensify the meaning of the process (e.g. to end to end up; to finish to finish up (off); to cut to cut off; to talk to talk away);
d) lose its lexical meaning and form an integral whole, a set expression (e.g. to fall out to quarrel; to give in to surrender; to come off to take place; to leave off to stop; to boil down to be reduced in quantity).
In verb-adverb combinations the second element may:
a) retain its adverbial properties of showing direction (e.g. to go out, to go in, to go away);
b) change the aspect of the verb, i.e. mark the completeness of the process (e.g. to eat to eat up; to stand to stand up; to sit to sit down; to lie to lie down; to shave to shave off; to speak to speak out);
c) intensify the meaning of the process (e.g. to end to end up; to finish to finish up (off); to cut to cut off; to talk to talk away);
d) lose its lexical meaning and form an integral whole, a set expression (e.g. to fall out to quarrel; to give in to surrender; to come off to take place; to leave off to stop; to boil down to be reduced in quantity).
These combinations have been treated by different scholars in different ways.
Some scholars have treated the second element as a variety of adverbs:
- as preposition-like adverbs (A. Smirnitsky, 1959),
- as a special kind of adverb called adverbial postpositon (I. E. Anichkov, 1947),
- as postverbial particles (L. Kivimgi et al., 1968: 35),
- as a special kind of form-word called postpositive (N. N. Amosova, 1963),
- a postfix or postpositive affix (Y. Zhluktenko, 1954),
- a separate part of speech called postposition (B.A. Ilyish, 1948).
As for B. Ilyish, he later (1971) changed his view arguing that, since the second element does not indicate the circumstances in which the process takes place, the whole construction is a phraseological unit: the whole has a meaning different from the meanings of the components.
According to M. Blokh, these elements form a special functional set of particles based on their functional character. He suggests the term post-positives.
The great variety of interpretations shows the complexity of the problem. Apparently, the problem requires further research.
Syntactic features. Adverbs are characterized by combinability with verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The adverb performs the function of an adverbial modifier.
Seminar questions:
1. The adjective as a part of speech.
2. Degrees of comparison.
3. Substantivization of adjectives. Adjectivization of nouns.
4. Adverb, its main properties.
Literature:
— M.Y.Blokh. A course in theoretical English grammar. :2000
— B. Ilyish. The structure of Modern English. : 1965
— I.I. Pribytok. Theory of English Grammar. M, 2008
