 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
98
additional criteria of argument.
First, considering the basic meaning expressed by the stative, we formulate it as "stative property", i.e. a
kind of property of a nounal referent. As we already know, the adjective as a whole signifies not "quality" in the
narrow sense, but "property", which is categorially divided into "substantive quality as such" and "substantive
relation". In this respect, statives do not fundamentally differ from classical adjectives. Moreover, common
adjectives and participles in adjective-type functions can express the same, or, more specifically, typologi-cally
the same properties (or "qualities" in a broader sense) as are expressed by statives.
Indeed, the main meaning types conveyed by statives are: the psychic state of a person (afraid, ashamed,
aware); the physical state of a person (astir, afoot); the physical state of an object (afire, ablaze, aglow); the
state of an object
in space (askew, awry, aslant). Meanings of the same order are rendered by pre-positional
adjectives. Cf.:
the living predecessor - the predecessor alive; eager curiosity - curiosity agog; the burning house - the
house afire-, a floating raft - a raft afloat, a half-open door - a door adjar, slanting ropes - ropes aslant, a
vigilant man - a man awake; similar cases - cases alike; an excited crowd - a crowd astir.
It goes without saying that many other adjectives and participles convey the meanings of various states
irrespective of their analogy with statives. Cf. such words of the order of psychic state as despondent, curious,
happy, joyful; such words of the order of human physical state as sound, refreshed, healthy, hungry; such words
of the order of activity state as busy, functioning, active, employed, etc.
Second, turning to the combinability characteristics of statives, we see that, though differing from those of
the common adjectives in one point negatively, they basically coincide with them in the other points. As a
matter of fact, statives are not used in attributive preposition, but, like adjectives, they are distinguished by the
left-hand categorial combinability both with nouns and link-verbs. Cf.:
The household was all astir. - - The household was all excited. - - It was strange to see the household astir at
this hour of the day.- -It was strange to see the household active at this hour of the day.
Third, analysing the functions of the stative corresponding to its combinability patterns, we see that
essentially they do not differ from the functions of the common adjective. Namely, the two basic functions of
the stative are the predicative and the attribute. The similarity of functions leads to the possibility of the use of
a stative and a common adjective in a homogeneous group. E.g.: Launches and barges moored to the dock
were ablaze and loud with wild sound.
True, the predominant function of the stative, as different from the common adjective, is that of the
predicative. But then, the important structural and functional peculiarities of statives uniting them in a
distinctly separate set of lexemes cannot be disputed. What is disputed is Ihe status of this set in relation to the
notional parts of speech, not its existence or identification as such.
Fourth, from our point of view, it would not be quite consistent with the actual lingual data to place the
stative strictly out of the category of comparison. As we have shown above, the category
of
comparison, is
connected with the functional division of adjectives into evaluative and specificative. Like common adjectives,
statives are subject to this flexible division, and so in principle they are included into the expression of the
quantitative estimation of the corresponding properties conveyed by them. True, statives do not take the
synthetic forms of the degrees of comparison, but they are capable of expressing comparison analytically, in
cases where it is to be expressed. Cf.:
Of us all, Jack was the one most aware of the delicate situation in which we found ourselves. I saw that the
adjusting lever stood far more askew than was allowed by the directions.
Fifth, quantitative considerations, though being a subsidiary factor of reasoning, tend to support the conjoint
part-of-speech interpretation of statives and common adjectives. Indeed, the total number of statives does not
exceed several dozen (a couple of dozen basic, "stable" units and, probably, thrice as many "unstable" words of
the nature of coinages for the nonce (Жигадло, Иванова, Иофик, 170]). This number is negligible in
comparison with the number of words of the otherwise identified notional parts of speech, each of them
counting thousands of units. Why, then, an honour of the part-of-speech status to be granted to a small group of
words not differing in their fundamental lexico-grammatical features from one of the established large word-
classes?
As for the set-forming prefix a-, it hardly deserves a serious consideration as a formal basis of the part-of-
speech identification of statives simply because formal features cannot be taken in isolation from functional
features. Moreover, as is known, there are words of property not distinguished by this prefix, which display
essential functional characteristics inherent in the stative set. In particular, here belong such adjectives as ill,