 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
97
For instance, the adjective good is basically qualitative. On the other hand, when employed as a grading
term in teaching, i.e. a term forming part of the marking scale together with the grading terms bad, satisfactory,
excellent, it acquires the said specificative value; in other words, it becomes a specificative, not an evaluative
unit in the grammatical sense (though, dialectically, it does signify in this case a lexical evaluation of the pupil's
progress). Conversely, the adjective wooden is basically relative, but when used in the broader meaning
"expressionless" or "awkward" it acquires an evaluative force and, consequently, can presuppose a greater or
lesser degree ("amount") of the denoted property in the corresponding referent. E.g.:
Bundle found herself looking into the expressionless, wooden face of Superintendent Battle (A. Christie).
The superintendent was sitting behind a table and looking more wooden than ever (Ibid).
The degrees of comparison are essentially evaluative formulas, therefore any adjective used in a higher
comparison degree (comparative, superlative) is thereby made into an evaluative adjective, if only for the nonce
(see the examples above).
Thus, the introduced distinction between the evaluative and specificative uses of adjectives, in the long run,
emphasizes the fact that the morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) is potentially
represented in the whole class of adjectives and is constitutive for it.
§ 3. Among the words signifying properties of a nounal referent there is a lexemic set which claims to be
recognized as a separate part of speech, i.e. as a class of words different from the adjectives in its class-
forming features. These are words built up by the prefix a- and denoting different states, mostly of temporary
duration. Here belong lexemes like afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze. In traditional grammar these words were
generally considered under the heading of "predicative adjectives" (some of them also under the heading of
adverbs), since their most typical position in the sentence is that of a predicative and they are but occasionally
used as pre-positional attributes to nouns.
Notional words signifying states and specifically used as predicatives were first identified as a separate part
of speech in the Russian language by L.V. Shcherba and V.V. Vinogradov. The two scholars called the newly
identified part of speech the "category of state" (and, correspondingly, separate words making up this category,
"words of the category of state"). Here belong the Russian words mostly ending in -o, but also having other
suffixes: тепло, зябко, одиноко, радостно, жаль, лень, etc. Traditionally the Russian words of the category
of state were considered as constituents of the class of adverbs, and they are still considered as such by many
Russian scholars.
On the analogy of the Russian "category of state", the English qualifying a-words of the corresponding
meanings were subjected to a lexico-grammatical analysis and given the part-of-speech heading "category of
state". This analysis was first conducted by BA. Ilyish and later continued by other linguists. The term "words
of the category of state", being rather cumbersome from the technical point of view, was later changed into
"stative words", or "statives".
The part-of-speech interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists working in the domain of
English, and has found both its proponents and opponents.
Probably the most consistent and explicit exposition of the part-of-speech interpretation of statives has been
given by B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya [Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 199 ff]. Their theses supporting the
view in question can be summarized as follows.
First, the statives, called by the quoted authors "adlinks" (by virtue of their connection with link-verbs and
on the analogy of the term "adverbs"), are allegedly opposed to adlectives on a purely semantic basis, since
adjectives denote "qualities", and statives-adlinks denote "states". Second, as different from adjectives, statives-
adlinks are characterized by the specific prefix a-. Third, they allegedly do not possess the category of the
degrees of comparison. Fourth, the combinability of statives-adlinks is different from that of adjectives in so far
as they are not used in the pre-positional attributive function, i.e. are characterized by the absence of the right-
hand combinability with nouns.
The advanced reasons, presupposing many-sided categorial estimation of statives, are undoubtedly serious
and worthy of note. Still, a closer consideration of the properties of the analysed lexemic set cannot but show
that, on the whole, the said reasons are hardly instrumental in proving the main idea, i.e. in establishing the
English stative as a separate part of speech. The re-consideration of the sta-tive on the basis of comparison with
the classical adjective inevitably discloses the fundamental relationship between the two, - such relationship as
should be interpreted in no other terms than identity at the part-of-speech level, though, naturally, providing for
their distinct differentiation at the subclass level.
The first scholar who undertook this kind of re-consideration of the lexemic status of English statives was
L.S. Barkhudarov, and in our estimation of them we essentially follow his principles, pointing out some