 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
100
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.
§ 5. 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 comparison; 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 categbrial 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, at 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 superlative degree, respectively, the strong member. The
whole of the double oppositional unity, considered from the semantic angle, constitutes a gradual ternary oppo-
sition.
§ 6. 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