Gradable and non- gradable adjectives

 

All the adjectives can be divided into two large groups: gradable and non- gradable. Gradable (also called descriptive, or qualitative) adjectives denote properties of entities that can be estimated quantitatively, or measured. So, for instance, the property beautiful can be estimated as high (very beautiful) or low (not very beautiful), adequate (beautiful enough) or inadequate (not beautiful enough). To put it otherwise, entities may have a different amount of property: some may have more than others (She is more beautiful than Mary, i.e. she has more of the property beauty than Mary); some have the most (She is the most beautiful of the other girls). As already mentioned, to gradable adjectives linguists generally attribute qualitative, or descriptive adjectives. However, not all such adjectives are gradable, i.e. not all of them are variable with respect to the quantity of the property, e.g. extinct, extreme, genuine, final, etc. They denote the highest degree of the properties, e.g. an extinct fire cannot be less or more extinct.

Gradable adjectives can be further divided into stative and dynamic. Adjectives are characteristically stative. Many adjectives, however, can be seen as dynamic. These are generally adjectives denoting the person's behaviour.

E.g.: He is tall (stative property) vs. He is being careful (dynamic property). The stative property of an entity is a property that cannot be conceived as a developing process, and the dynamic property of an entity is a property that is conceived as active, or as a developing process.

Dynamic adjectives closely resemble activity verbs: like activity verbs, they can be used in the progressive and in the perfect form (e.g. John is being careful today vs. John has been careful today. Cf. John has been very tall today). The progressive form is used when the speaker wishes to give greater prominence to the relevance of the process to the moment of speaking. In this usage such constructions are comparable to John is always talking in class. Both are used to express emotions - positive and negative.

Non-gradable adjectives constitute three groups:

1) relative;

2) intensifying;

3) restrictive, or particularizing.

 

Relative adjectives express the property of an entity related to some other entity. For instance, wooden is related to wood, chemical to chemistry, coloured to colour, etc. Relative adjectives express non-a properties. If entities have such properties, they cannot be said to have less or more of such properties as compared to other entities having the same properties. So, if a house is made of wood, it cannot be more wooden than the other house: both are made of wood. However, if a house is built of wood and concrete, we can say that the house is more wooden than the other house.

Intensifying adjectives constitute two groups: 1) emphasizers; 2) amplifiers. Emphasizers have a heightening effect on the noun (clear, definite, outright, plain, pure, real, sheer, sure, true); amplifiers scale upwards from an assumed norm (complete, great, firm, absolute, close, perfect, extreme, entire, total, utter). Restrictive adjectives restrict the noun to a particular member of the class (chief, exact, main, particular, precise, principal, sole, specific).

It should be observed, however, that the said types of adjective exhibit varying degrees of resistance to the process of comparison. The most stubborn are relatives and intensifiers, whereas amplifiers can sometimes be subjected to comparison. According to Geoffrey K. Pullum and Rodney Huddleston (2002: 532), unique, complete, perfect, total are not absolutes proper, i.e. native speakers do not treat them in this way. Consider: highly unique, one of the more unique features, the most unique person; more complete; more perfect. The appearance of the above constructions can be accounted for by the desire of the speaker to set the entity apart from other entities having the same property.

From a syntactic point of view, adjectives can be divided into three groups:

1) adjectives which can be used attributively and predicatively;

2) adjectives which can be used attributively only;

3) adjectives which can be used predicatively only.

 

Gradable adjectives denoting a permanent property, or state, belong to the first group, e.g. a big house vs. the house is big. Intensifying and restrictive adjectives are usually used attributively only, e.g. a complete fool vs. The fool is complete or a particular child vs. The child is particular. Adjectives denoting a temporary property, or state, are used predicatively only, e.g. She is being very clever today does not yield she is a very clever girl.

The category of comparison. It is the only grammatical category of the adjective in English. It is based on gradable, or qualitative adjectives. The category of comparison is constituted by the opposition of three forms of the adjective: the positive, the comparative, and the superlative. Some grammarians have expressed the view that there are only two degrees of comparison. Otto Jespersen (1968: 244), for instance, argues that the positive degree cannot be regarded as a degree of comparison as it does not convey the idea of comparison. According to A.I. Smirnitsky (1959: 158), the degrees of comparison include the positive degree and the relative degree which is subdivided into the comparative and the superlative degree. As is rightly pointed out by Gunnar Kivivali (1971: 52), «The solution of the problem depends on how we define degrees of comparison. If we define them as forms which show whether the adjective denotes the property of some intence absolutely or relatively, there would be three degrees of comparison. If we define degrees of comparison as forms expressing comparison of some substance with another in respect of a certain property, there would be only two degrees of comparison».

There are three ways of forming degrees of comparison: synthetic, analytic, and suppletive. The synthetic way of forming degrees of comparison is by the inflections -er, -est; the analytic way, by placing more and most before the adjective. The synthetic way is generally used with monosyllabic adjectives and dissylabic adjectives ending in -y, -ow, -er, -le and those which have the stress on the last syllable, e.g. tall — taller, tallest; pretty — prettier, prettiest; narrow — narrower, narrowest; clever — cleverer, cleverest; simple — simpler, simplest; polite — politer, politest. An apparent exception to this rule are the following adjectives which are stressed on the first syllable: pleasant — pleasanter; cruel — crueler, cruelest; quiet — quieter, quietest; stupid — stupider, stupidest; common — commoner, commonest. However, in the dissylabic group we can observe radical changes: adjectives formerly taking -er and -est are tending to go over to more and most, e.g. more common, most common; more cloudy, most cloudy; more fussy, most fussy; more cruel, most cruel; more quiet, most quiet; more clever, most clever; more profound, most profound; more simple, most simple; more pleasant, most pleasant - all these were normally compared with -er and -est According to Charles Barber, recently there have been many cases of more and most spreading even to monosyllabic adjectives: more crude, most crude; more plain, most plain; more keen, most keen. All this goes to show that English comparison is getting more and more analytic. The analytic way of comparison is preferable when the speaker wishes to focus attention on the degree.

E.g.: She seems happier than she used to be. vs. She seems more happy than she used to be. vs. She seems more happy than she used to be.

Analytic forms are in complementary distribution with the synthetic forms of comparison, i.e. the distribution of analytic forms, or the use of analytic forms, complements the distribution of synthetic forms. To put in simple language, where the speaker cannot use synthetic forms, he resorts to analytic forms. They complement each other.

It goes without saying that it is convenient to treat more, most as analytic elements functionally identical with the bound morphemes -er and -est. Acting together (i.e. being in complementary distribution), more, most and -er, -est cover all the gradable adjectives. However, this circumstance is no proof of the grammaticalized status of more and most.

To analytic forms of comparison M. Blokh also attributes less/least combinations. He calls them forms of reverse comparison. By the way, the forms less, least are generally used as an argument against the treatment of more and most as grammatical word-morphemes. So, for instance, B. Ilyish argues that if less and least are not grammatical word morphemes, more and most are not grammatical word-morphemes either. While we can speak of direct and indirect way of comparison, the way M. Blokh does, the problem of the linguistic status of more and most or less and least remains unsolved. In our opinion, attempts to prove that more and most have turned into grammatical word-morphemes are as futile as attempts to prove that shall and will have turned into grammatical word-morphemes in I shall/will go there. Forms with more and most can only be referred to as analytic if the notion analytic form is given a broad interpretation, i.e. if we waive the requirement that an analytic form proper should consist of a lexically emptied word and a notional word.

As already pointed out, the third way of forming degrees of comparison is by the use of suppletive forms: good — better, best; bad — worse, worst; far — farther/further, farthest/furthest; little — less, least; much/many — more, most.

In discussing Aof comparison, linguists generally mention such constructions as a most beautiful girl. The use of the indefinite article with them is sometimes exploited as an argument against the treatment of more and most as grammatical word-morphemes. However, the indefinite article has nothing to do with comparison; it points to another problem, the lexicalization of superlative forms: most no longer marks the superlative degree; it has turned into an adverb of degree whose meaning is the same as that of very. Cf. also the best suit vs. a best suit; the best seller vs. a best-seller.

The problem of the category of state. There is a class of words in English with the following morphological, semantic and syntactic characteristics:

1) The words of this type may be characterized by the prefix a- (it derives from the Middle English preposition an 'in, on'): alive, asleep, ajar, etc.; they generally do not form degrees of comparison, e.g. Mary is more asleep; Mary is the most asleep.

2) The words of this type denote a temporary state, e.g. The child is ill. The child is healthy.

3) The words of this type are used predicatively only, e.g. He is awake.

 

Because of the said features, these words are regarded by some grammarians as a separate part of speech which has been variously referred to as the category of state words, adlinks, and statives (B. Ilyish, B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya). But, the number of such words does not exceed several dozen. These words cannot be compared to other parts of speech. The prefix a- is, of course, a marker of such adjectives. However, there are many adjectives of temporary state without the prefix a-, e.g. ill, well, glad, sorry, fine, worth (while), great, swell, wonderful, lousy, dizzy, hot, blue, et.

Besides, other adjectives can also be used as temporary adjectives, e.g. John is being noisy today. A stronger argument is that such adjectives are restricted to a predicative position, or a position after the noun, e.g. The man is ready or The materials ready will be shipped. vs. The ready man; The ready materials. Postposed position is generally a marker of temporariness, and the preposed position is a marker of permanence.

The analysis shows that temporary adjectives are generally distinguished on the basis of meaning and syntactic function. The last argument concerns the category of comparison. Temporary adjectives, unsimilar to 'normal' adjectives, are said to lack forms of comparison. This is true, but to some extent, only: temporary adjectives do not take the synthetic forms of the degrees of comparison, but they are capable of expressing comparison analytically, e.g. Jack was the one most aware of the delicate situation in which we found ourselves or He is more dead than alive.

The traditional view of the stative, which separates temporary adjectives from other adjectives, does not seem to be convincing: temporary adjectives are part and parcel of the adjective class as a whole. At the same time, we must admit that these adjectives have features (meaning, function) that allow us to assign them to a separate subclass of the adjective. But the features examined are not sufficient for the distinction of the category of state within the adjective.