 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
103
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.
§ 8. 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-compa-rables 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 lexcmic 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.
XIX
ADVERB
§ 1. 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. This definition, though certainly informative
and instructive, fails to directly point out the relation between the adverb and the adjective as the primary
qualifying part of speech.
In an attempt to overcome this drawback, let us define the adverb as a notional word expressing a non-
substantive property, that is, a property of a non-substantive referent. This formula immediately shows the
actual correlation between the adverb and the adjective, since the adjective is a word expressing a
substantive property.
Properties may be of a more particular, "organic" order, and a more general and detached, "inorganic"
order. Of the organic properties, the adverb denotes those characterizing processes and other properties. Of
the inorganic properties, the adverb denotes various circumstantial characteristics of processes or whole
situations built around processes.
The above definition, approaching the adverb as a word of the secondary qualifying order, presents the
entire class of adverbial words as the least self-dependent of all the four notional parts of speech. .Indeed, as
has been repeatedly pointed out, the truly complete nominative value is inherent only in the noun, which is the
name of substances. The verb comes next in its self-dependent nominative force, expressing processes as
dynamic relations of substances, i.e. their dynamic relational properties in the broad sense. After that follow
qualifying parts of speech - first the adjective denoting qualifications of substances, and then the adverb
denoting qualifications of non-substantive phenomena which find themselves within the range of notional
signification.
As we see, the adverb is characterized by its own, specific nominative value, providing for its inalienable
status in the system of the parts of speech. Hence, the complaints of some linguists that the adverb is not
rigorously defined and in fact presents something like a "dump" for those words which have been rejected by
other parts of speech can hardly be taken as fully justified. On the other hand, since the adverb does denote
qualifications of the second order, not of the first one like the adjective, it includes a great number of
semantically weakened words which are in fact intermediate between notional and functional lexemes by their
status and often display features of pronominal nature.