Formal characteristics of the adverb

 

In terms of the formal criterion the adverb is characterized by the following features [13, 39]:

1) the forms of the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs;

2) the specific suffixal forms of derivation.

The only pattern of morphological change for adverbs is the same as for adjectives, the degrees of comparison [25, 94]. With regard to the category of the degrees of comparison adverbs (like adjectives) fall into comparables and non-comparables. The number of non-comparables is much greater among adverbs than among adjectives. Only adverbs of manner and certain adverbs of time and place can form degrees of comparison. The three grades are called positive, comparative, and superlative degrees.

Adverbs that are identical in form with adjectives take inflections following the same spelling and phonetic rules as for adjectives:

hard — harder — hardest

soon — sooner — soonest

early — earlier — earliest

Several adverbs ending in -ly (quickly, loudly) form comparatives according to the same pattern, dropping their adverb-forming suffix. These adverbs acquired the form in -ly only recently and retained the older forms of the comparative and superlative:

quickly – quicker – quickest

loudly – louder – loudest

However most disyllabic adverbs in -ly and all polysyllabic ones form the comparative and superlative analytically, by means of more and most:

beautifully — more beautifully — most beautifully

cleverly — more cleverly — most cleverly

As with adjectives, there is a small group of adverbs with comparatives and superlatives formed from different stems ( suppletive forms ). These comparatives and superlatives are identical with those for the corresponding adjectives and can be differentiated from the latter only syntactically:

well — better — best

badly — worse — worst

much — more — most

little — less — least

All the problems connected with the adjectival degrees of comparison retain their force for the adverbial degrees of comparison. Some grammarians do not admit forms like more quickly, most quickly to be analytical degrees of comparison [9]. They distinguish only two types of degrees of comparison in adverbs:

· the suffix type (quickly – quicker – quickest)

· the suppletive type (well — better — best)

Adverbs vary in their structure. In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple, derived, compound and composite [25].

Simple adverbs are rather few, and nearly all of them display functional semantics, mostly of pronominal character: here, there, now, then, so, quite, why, how, where, when.

Derived adverbs may be classified in several groups [30, 164]. The two largest groups are those formed from adjectives and participles by adding the suffix -ly, e. g.: hopefully, physically, strangely, falsely, occasionally, lately, immediately, constantly, purely, slowly, charmingly, etc.

There has been a marked discrepancy of opinion concerning deadjectival adverbs in terms of two mutually exclusive types of morphological derivation – inflection and word-formation [5]. Two views have been put forward, according to which adverbs are treated as either the inflectional paradigmatic form of a parent adjective or its derivative [6]. The former view can be refuted if we proceed from the notion of symmetry/asymmetry of the semantic structures. The structures are considered symmetric if they are characterized by both quantitative and qualitative convergence of their sense components; conversely, the parent and the resultant semantic structures are considered asymmetric if they diverge either in the number or in the character of the meanings conveyed [5].

According to Garipova N.D., adjectival and adverbial forms are asymmetric; the process of deriving adverbs from adjectives involves the semantic shift that yields two possibilities: the adverb may develop new meanings, or, more often, the semantic structure of the motivated adverb turns out to be more simplified and narrower in comparison with that of the motivating adjective [2]. For example, the adverb roughly retains only 3 meanings out of 17, inherent in the semantic structure of the adjective rough. All this leads to conclude that adverbs cannot be regarded as inflectional forms of adjectives.

The third group consists of those that are formed by means of the derivational prefix - a (phonemically [э]) to nouns, adjectives or verbs. Of about sixty of them in more or less common use nearly half are formed from nouns: aboard, aside, away, ahead, apart, across etc. The rest are about equally divided among those formed from verbs, e. g.: amiss, astir; from adjectives — anew, abroad.

In traditional grammars such words are generally classed as both adjectives and adverbs and they are so listed in most dictionaries, which seems hardly justified since from the structural point of view none of them can fit the basic adjective position between determiner and noun (We cannot say the aloud voice or the adrift boat) [30, 164].

The fourth group of derived adverbs originally very small, but in present-day English exhibiting signs of rapid growth includes those formed by adding the derivational suffix - wise to nouns. A few adverbs of this type are well-established words like clockwise, otherwise, likewise; others are recent coinages or nonce-words like crabwise and actor-wise. In American English the suffix -wise is most active and can be more freely attached to many nouns to create adverbs like personnel-wise. Such forms are recognised in writing by the use of the hyphen.

Then comes a smaller group of adverbs formed by the addition of the derivational suffix - ward(s) to a limited group of nouns; home- ward(s), forward(s), backward(s). Most adverbs of this group have two forms, one with the final -s and one without, variously distributed. The forms without -s are homonymous with adjectives: the backward child, he looked backward.

The less common suffixes are the following:

 

-fold -like -most -way(s)

twofold, manifold warlike innermost, outermost longways, sideways

 

Compound adverbs are formed of two stems: sometimes, somewhere, somehow, someplace, nowhere, everywhere, anyway, downstairs, etc. There are fewer than twenty of these in common use.

Composite phrasal adverbs consist of two or more word-forms, as a great deal, a little bit, far enough, now and then, from time to time, sort of, kind of, a hell of, a lot of, a great deal of, at least, at most, at last, to and fro, upside down. Such adverbs are lexically and grammatically indivisible and form a single idea.

Considered in their structure, composite phrasal adverbs may be classified as follows [30, 164]:

1) preposition + noun: at hand, at home, by heart, on horseback, on foot, in turn, to date;

2) noun + preposition + noun: arm in arm, day by day, day after day, day to day, face to face, word for word, year by year;

3) preposition + substantivised adjective: at last, at first, at large, in large, in full, in quiet, in short, in vain, of late, of old;

4) preposition + verbal noun made through conversion: at a guess, at a run, in a rush, on the move, on the run;

5) preposition + numeral: at first, at once, at one, by twos;

6) coordinate adverbs: by and by, on and off (= off and on), on and on;

7) pronoun + adjective (or participle): all right, all told, O. K. (all correct);

8) preposition + pronoun: after all, in all, at all.

In point of fact most adverbs of that kind may be reasonably referred to as grammatical idioms [30, 165]. This can be seen, for instance, in the unusual absence of the article before their noun components and specialised use of the noun in its singular form only: on foot (but not on the foot, or on feet which may occur in free prepositional word-groups), in fact (but not in the fact), at first (but not at the first), etc.

There is a miscellaneous class of adverbs that have no formal signals at all to distinguish them in isolation; we know them as adverbs because of their positions in utterances, in which the other parts of speech are clearly identifiable. Many adverbs in this group are fairly frequent in occurrence: always, now, then, here, there, often, seldom, still, even. Others in this group are words which may also appear as other parts of speech, such as: downstairs, home, late, little, fast, stow, early, far, hard, near:

My friend is the world’s fastest runner [38]. (adjective)

The water was rising very fast [38]. (adverb)

It is hard to believe that she’s only nine [40]. (adjective)

He was still breathing hard after his run [40]. (adverb)

Formations of the type from outside, till now, before then, etc. cannot be included in the word-building sets of adverbs [13, 223]. It is not difficult to see that such formations differ in principle from the ones cited above. The difference consists in the fact that their parts are semantically not blended into an indivisible lexemic unity and present combinations of a preposition with a peculiar adverbial substantive — a word occupying an intermediary lexico-grammatical status between the noun and the adverb. This is most clearly seen on ready examples liberally offered by English texts of every stylistic standing:

The pale moon looked at me from above [13, 223].

By now Sophie must have received the letter and very soon we shall hear from her [13, 223].

The departure of the delegation is planned for later this week [41].

The freely converted adverbial substantives in prepositional collocations belong to one of the idiomatic characteristics of English, and may be likened, with due alteration of details, to partially substantivised adjectives of the adjectivid type. On this analogy the adverbial substantives in question may be called "adverbids" [13, 223].

Furthermore, there are in English some other peculiar structural types of adverbs which are derivationally connected with the words of non-adverbial lexemic classes by conversion [13, 223]. Conversion consist in making a new word from some existing word by changing the category of a part of speech, the morphemic shape of the original word remaining unchanged [17, 118]. To adverbs coined by conversion belong both adverbs of full notional value and adverbs of half-notional value.

A peculiar set of converted notional adverbs is formed by adjective-stem conversives, such as fast, late, hard, high, close, loud, tight, etc. The peculiar feature of these adverbs consists in the fact that practically all of them have a parallel form in -ly, the two component units of each pair often differentiated in meaning or connotation: to work hard — hardly to work at all; to fall flat into the water — to refuse flatly; to speak loud — to criticise loudly; to fly high over the lake — to raise a highly theoretical question.

Among the adjective-stem converted adverbs there are a few words with the non-specific -ly originally in-built in the adjective (daily, weekly, lively, timely):

Invoices are signed on a daily basis [38]. (adjective)

The machines are inspected twice daily [38]. (adverb)

The purely positional nature of the conversion in question, i.e. its having no support in any differentiated categorial paradigms, can be reflected by the term "fluctuant conversives" [13] which is proposed to use as the name of such formations.

As for the fluctuant conversives of weakened pronominal semantics, very characteristic of English are the adverbs that positionally interchange with prepositions and conjunctive words (before, after, round, within): never before — never before our meeting; somewhere round — round the corner; not to be found within — within a minute.

Among the various types of adverbs, those formed from adjectives by means of the suffix -ly not only occupy the most representative place but also pose a special problem.

The problem is introduced by the very regularity of their derivation, the rule of which can be formulated quite simply: each qualitative adjective has a parallel adverb in –ly [13, 226]: silent — silently, slow — slowly, tolerable — tolerably, pious — piously, sufficient — sufficiently, tired — tiredly, explosive — explosively, etc.

This regularity of formation accompanied by the general qualitative character of semantics gave cause to A. I. Smirnitsky to advance the view that both sets of words belong to the same part of speech, the qualitative adverbs in -ly being in fact adjectives of specific combinability [9, 174-175].

The strong point of the adjectival interpretation of qualitative adverbs in -ly is the demonstration of the actual similarity between the two lexemic sets in their broader evaluative function, which fact provides for the near-identity of the adjectival and adverbial grammatical categories of comparison. On the whole, however, the theory in question is hardly acceptable for the mere reason that derivative relations in general are not at all relations of lexico-grammatical identity; for that matter, they are rather relations of non-identity, since they actually constitute a system of production of one type of lexical units from another type of lexical units [13, 227]. As for the types of units belonging to the same or different lexemic classes, this is a question of their actual status in the system of lexicon, i. e. in the lexemic paradigm of nomination reflecting the fundamental correlations between the lexemic sets of language. Since the English lexicon does distinguish adjectives and adverbs; since adjectives are substantive-qualifying words in distinction to adverbs, which are non-substantive qualifying words; since, finally, adverbs in -ly do preserve this fundamental nonsubstantive-qualification character — there can't be any question of their being "adjectives" in any rationally conceivable way. As for the regularity or irregularity of derivation, it is absolutely irrelevant to the identification of their class-lexemic nature [13, 228].

Thus, the whole problem is not a problem of part-of-speech identity; it is a problem of inter-class connections, in particular, of inter-class systemic division of functions, and, certainly, of the correlative status of the compared units in the lexical paradigm of nomination.

But worthy of attention is the relation of the adverbs in question to adverbs of other types and varieties, i. e. their intra-class correlations. As a matter of fact, the derivational features of other adverbs, in sharp contrast to the ly-adverbs, are devoid of uniformity to such an extent that practically all of them fall into a multitude of minor non-productive derivational groups [7]. Besides, the bulk of notional qualitative adverbs of other than ly-derivation have ly-correlatives (both of similar and dissimilar meanings and connotations). These facts cannot but show that adverbs in -ly should be looked upon as the standard type of the English adverb as a whole [13, 229].