Substantivization of Adjectives
Adjectives can be substantivized, i.e. become nouns. When adjectives are converted into nouns, they no longer indicate properties of substances, but come to express substances possessing these properties. In English, the process of substantivization is easier than in Russian due to the scantiness of inflections. Substantivization can be whole and partial.
Adjectives wholly converted into nouns acquire not only the grammatical meaning of nouns but also their typical morphological and syntactic characteristics:
1) ability to form the plural, e.g.:
All natives have good hands and feet (W.S. Maugham);
73
2) ability to be used in the genitive case, e.g.:
He is investigating the ancients' conception of the universe (R. Quirk et al.);
3) ability to be used with the indefinite article, e.g.:
I spoke the language like a native... (W,S. Maugham);
4) ability to be modified by an adjective, e.g.:
My uncle is my nearest living relative (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);
5) the functions of subject and/or object in the sentence, e.g.:
A native -was silently rowing up-stream... (W.S. Maugham) -
subject;
The government of the island treated the natives badly (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - object.
More often substantivization is but partial. In the case of partial substantivization, adjectives acquire the grammatical meaning of nouns ('thingness'), the noun combinability with the definite article or some other definite determiner, and the noun functions of subject and/or object, e.g.:
The poor must stand together everywhere (Th. Dreiser) — subject.
... it seems to me I saw everybody but the dead (S. Bellow) -object.
However, they lack the grammatical categories of case and number and never combine with the indefinite article.
A.I. Smirnitsky thinks that in order to become a noun, an adjective must acquire number distinctions. That's why he does not recognize partial substantivization and treats cases like the rich, the poor, etc. as the use of adjectives without nouns.
But the category of number is common only to countable nouns. Uncountable nouns stand outside the category of number. Nevertheless, nobody denies them the status of nouns. So, the argument of A.I. Smirnitsky is not convincing.
R. Quirk and his co-authors do not recognize the existence of partial substantivization either. They treat cases of the kind the brave, the weak, etc. as adjectives, not as nouns converted from adjectives. They single out three types of such adjectives.
|
|
|
Type A: the innocent.
Adjectives that can premodify personal nouns (the young people} can be noun-phrase heads (the young} denoting classes, categories, or types of people. These adjectives are restricted to generic reference and combine with plural predicate-verbs. They can be premodified and postmodified. Cf.:
The extremely old need a great deal of attention (R. Quirk
et al.).
The young in spirit enjoy life (R. Quirk et al.).
Although adjectives functioning as noun-phrase heads generally require a definite determiner, they can function without a determiner if they are conjoined or are used in an o/-construction.
Cf:
He is acceptable to both old and young (R. Quirk et al.).
The number of jobless/unemployed is rising (R. Quirk et al.).
Type B: the Dutch.
Some adjectives denoting nationality can be noun-phrase heads. The adjectives in question are restricted to words ending in -(i)sh, -ch, and -ese. These noun phrases have generic reference and combine with plural predicate-verbs. Unlike Type A, Type B cannot be modified by adverbs. However, they can be modified by prepositive adjectives, postpositive phrases, and relative clauses. Cf.:
The industrious Dutch are admired by their neighbours (R. Quirk et al.).
The Irish who live in America retain sentimental links with Ireland (R. Quirk et al.).
Type C: the mystical.
Some adjectives can function as noun-phrase heads with abstract reference. Type C is restricted chiefly to certain fixed expressions. Thus, for example, the supernatural, the exotic, the unreal are more likely to occur than the lovely, the foreign, the exciting.
They include, in particular, superlatives. Like Type A, they can be modified by adverbs. Unlike Types A and B, Type C adjectives functioning as noun-phrase heads combine with singular predicate-verbs. Cf.:
The very best is yet to come (R. Quirk et al.).
74
75
The conception of R. Quirk and his co-authors seems as vulnerable as that of A.I. Smirnitsky. Really, if cases of the kind the brave, the weak, etc. are adjectives, how can they function as heads of noun phrases?
We shall follow those linguists who recognize the existence in Modern English of both whole and partial substantivization of adjectives.
|
|
|
Adjectivization of Nouns
The question of adjectivization of nouns presents a number of difficulties, too. Here we shall deal with such constructions as stone wall, peace talks, etc.
In the opinion of B.A. Ilyish, it is practically impossible to prove whether stone in stone wall is a noun or an adjective.
H. Sweet thinks that the first component in these constructions is a noun because it lacks the category of degrees of comparison. However, many adjectives have no degrees of comparison either.
E.P. Shubin also refers the first component in constructions of the type stone wall to nouns. But taking into consideration that it always performs the function of an attribute, he finds it necessary to slightly modify the conception of H. Sweet by calling the first component an attributive noun. The term attributive noun stresses the transitional nature of such nouns, their tendency to turn into adjectives.
According to O. Jespersen, they have already turned into adjectives. He puts forward the following arguments to prove his point of view. In the first place, they can combine with adjectives, e.g.:
her Christian and family name (O. Jespersen).
In the second place, they can be followed by the prop-word one, e.g.:
two gold watches and a silver one (O. Jespersen).
In the third place, they can be modified by prepositive adverbs, e.g.:
on merely business grounds (O. Jespersen).
In the fourth place, some of them can have degrees of comparison, e.g.:
in a more everyday tone (O. Jespersen),
in the most matter-of-fact way (O. Jespersen).
76
The divergence of views, in our opinion, is due to the gradual process of adjectivization. The latter is reflected in dictionaries. Thus, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English presents family and business as nouns. For silver it has two entries:
silver (n) - a soft whitish precious metal,
silver (adj) - made of silver.
Solid and hyphenated compounds of the type everyday, matter-of-fact are qualified there as adjectives.
Only time will show whether all the attributive nouns will turn into adjectives proper, but their adjectivization is an indisputable
|
|
|
fact.
It seems reasonable to follow D. Crystal and say that at the present stage nouns, which appear in the position associated with adjectives, form a 'mixed' word class.
The Problem ofStatives
A. Vostokov was the first to draw attention to a specific nature of statives in the system of the Russian language. But he did not study the problem closely. It was L.V. Scerba and V.V. Vinogradov who singled out such words as xonodno, ctipo, eece.io, stcwib into a separate part of speech.
The first grammarian to mention statives in English was B.A. Ilyish. He thinks that words of the category of state, for instance, asleep, alive constitute a separate part of speech because they possess semantic, morphological, and syntactic characteristics of their own.
Semantically, he says, statives are marked by the presence of a seme of state, as opposed to adjectives that express non-temporal property, e.g.: ... he had been asleep for some time... (J.K. Jerome), which means that he had been in a state of sleep for some time.
In the opinion of L.S. Barkhudarov, the meaning of state is merely a variety of the meaning of non-temporal property typical of adjectives. So, in his opinion, statives do not differ from adjectives as far as their meaning is concerned.
Morphologically, statives seem to stand apart from adjectives, for they have a specific prefix a- and lack the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. On closer inspection, the absence of degrees of comparison does not prove anything. On the one hand, there are a lot of adjectives that stand outside the grammatical
77
category of degrees of comparison. On the other hand, some of the so-called statives form degrees of comparison just like most qualitative adjectives, e.g.:
The two main meals of the day, lunch and dinner, are both more or less alike (Lingaphone English Course).
As for the prefix a-, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English regards it as an adjective-forming prefix.
B.A. Ilyish thinks that statives possess the category of tense. He is asleep, in his opinion, refers to the present tense as opposed to He was asleep, which is past, and to He will be asleep, which is future.
|
|
|
However, this point of view does not seem convincing. If one analyses the above-mentioned sentences, he will see that the category of tense finds its expression in the copular verb be (is, was, will be), not in the stative asleep, which, in itself, cannot express any tense distinctions. In other words, if the so-called statives do have morphological categories, it is the morphological category of degrees of comparison that they possess, common to adjectives.
The combinability of statives and adjectives, according to L.S. Barkhudarov, is also alike. Thus, both adjectives and statives can be modified by adverbs and prepositional combinations. Cf:
She was very happy (W.S. Maugham).
In a minute she was fast asleep (P. Abrahams).
He was conscious of a sense of adventure (W. Deeping).
Yet he was aware of a sense of unreality (W. Deeping).
The only thing that differentiates statives from adjectives is their syntactic function in the sentence. Adjectives are generally used both attributively and predicatively, statives - mainly predicatively:
She is aloof from her classmates (S. Sheldon).
... his soul was ablaze with bliss (M. Twain).
/ was aware again of that feeling of discomfort (D. du Maurier).
The criterion of syntactic function, however, is hardly sufficient for qualifying the words of a category of state as a separate part of speech, clearly distinct from adjectives.
In the first place, some 'statives' can be and are used attributively, especially when they are premodified. Cf:
an alert manner (R. Quirk et al.),
an aloof character (R. Quirk et al.),
a somewhat afraid soldier (R. Quirk et al.),
the fast asleep children (R. Quirk et al.),
the wide awake patient (R. Quirk et al.).
In the second place, there are some indisputable adjectives that are restricted to predicative position. The most common are those referring to the health or lack of health of an animate being, e.g.:
He felt iWpoorfy/faint (R. Quirk et al.).
That's why we shall look upon words with the prefix a- as a specific subclass of adjectives.
7. THE ADVERB
Although the adverb as a separate part of speech was singled out in Ancient Grammar, its boundaries in English are still rather vague because the adverb is the most heterogeneous of all the English word classes. R. Quirk and his co-authors write that it is tempting to say simply that the adverb is an item that does not fit the definitions for other word classes. Nevertheless, modern grammars try to make adverbs less of a 'dustbin' class by identifying their main semantic, syntactic, and morphological characteristics.
Classes of Adverbs and Their Characteristics
Russian linguists generally draw a distinction between two classes of adverbs: qualitative and circumstantial. Qualitative adverbs have the following characteristics.
1. Meaning.
Qualitative adverbs have a generalized grammatical secondary meaning of non-temporal property of a non-substantive referent, e.g.: quickly, slowly, nervously.
2. Combinability with:
a) verbs in preposition and in postposition, e.g.:
She sings beautifully (A.S. Hornby),
I deeply regret the mistake (A.S. Hornby);
b) adjectives in postposition, e.g.:
Her exam results were very good (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);
c) adverbs in preposition, e.g.:
She sings verv_ well (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
78
79
3. Syntactic.Functions.
Qualitative adverbs modify the verbal component of predication and perform the function of an adverbial of manner,
G £ *
The children were playing happily (A.S. Hornby).
4-Mprpholpgical.Stnjcture.
Simple qualitative adverbs are very few, e.g.: well, hard, fast, etc. Most qualitative adverbs are derived. They are generally formed from adjectives with an -fy suffix, e.g.: calm - calmly.
The present-day suffix -fy goes back to the Old English suffix -lie that was an adjective-forming suffix. A few adjectives with the suffix -fy have survived in Modern English, e.g.: friendly, lively, lovely, lonely, etc. They have no corresponding adverbs. To express an adverbial meaning one resorts to periphrastic constructions of the type: in a friendly way, in a lively manner, etc.
In a number of cases there are two adverbs of the same root: one with the suffix ~fy, the other - without the suffix -ly. The adverb with the suffix -ly usually has a more abstract or a figurative meaning; the adverb without the suffix -ly generally has a more concrete meaning. Cf.:
She threw the ball high into the air (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
She speaks very highly of your work (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Sometimes there is no essential difference between the adverb with the suffix -ly and the adverb without the suffix -ly. Cf.:
Samuel laughed loudly (J. Steinbeck).
They laughed loud and long (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson).
When the derived and the simple qualitative adverbs coincide in their meaning, there is a growing tendency to use in conversation the adverb without the suffix -ly, particularly in colloquial American English, e.g.:
The big one went so slow (D. Biber et al).
The derivational suffixes -long and -ward(s) are not productive in the domain of qualitative adverbs, e.g.: headlong ), sideways (sokom, hckoch).
5- Morphological,Categories.
Qualitative adverbs have the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. Cf:
fast -faster -fastest,
clearly - more clearly - most clearly.
Circumstantial adverbs have the following characteristics.
1. Meaning.
Circumstantial adverbs denote various circumstances attending an action, e.g.: here, there, yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc.
2. Combinability with:
a) notional verbs in preposition, e.g.:
How long have you lived here? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);
b) the copular verb be in preposition, e.g.:
They^re here! (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);
c) nouns in preposition and in postposition, e.g.:
the meeting yesterday (R. Quirk et al.),
that man there (R. Quirk et al.), an outside door (R. Quirk et al.), the then President (E.A.M. Wilson);
d) adverbs in preposition and in postposition, e.g.:
Come and sit over here (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English),
far beyond (E.A.M. Wilson);
e) prepositions, e.g.:
She lives a few miles from here (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);
f) prepositional combinations in postposition, e.g.:
They travelled far from home (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
3. Syntactic.Functions.
When circumstantial adverbs modify the verbal component of predication, they perform the function of an adverbial, e.g.:
Come here (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson).
When circumstantial adverbs modify the predication as a whole, they perform the function of a situational modifier and are usually placed in the initial position, e.g.:
80
81
He opened the doo*. Now the noise was very loud (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
When circumstantial adverbs combine with a copular verb, they perform the function of a predicative, e.g.:
We 're nearly there (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson).
When circumstantial adverbs modify a substantival component, they perform the function of an attribute. Cf.:
We shall need outside help for this job (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson).
The light outside faded (J. Parsons).
4. Morphological ..Structure.
Circumstantial adverbs are usually either simple, e.g.: now, then, soon, here, there, etc. or compound, e.g.; sometimes, somewhere, everywhere, downstairs, etc. Derivative circumstantial adverbs are few, e.g.: backward(s), forward(s), homeward(s), etc. As for phrasal adverbs of the type: on purpose, at last, from time to time, etc., we qualify them as adverb equivalents because they consist of several words.
5. MprpholPBicalCate^gries.
Most circumstantial adverbs are invariable. The adverbs often, soon, and late have the grammatical category of degrees of comparison.
Degrees of Comparison
Comparative and superlative forms are used more commonly for adjectives than adverbs. English adverbs usually have two degrees of comparison: positive and comparative. The superlative degree of adverbs is used very rarely. Most adverbs are invariable. It is only qualitative adverbs and the circumstantial adverbs often, soon, and late that have degrees of comparison. The category of degrees of comparison of adverbs is similar to that of adjectives: simple adverbs are marked inflectionally for comparative and superlative degrees; derived adverbs in -ly form their degrees of comparison with more and most. Cf.:
hard - harder - hardest,
late - later - latest,
carefully — more carefully - most carefully.
The only exception is the adverb early formed by conversion from the adjective early, which is inflectionally marked for the comparative and the superlative degrees:
early - earlier — earliest.
In some cases, an adverb can be made comparative either with the -er inflection or with the use of more. Cf.:
slowly - slower (more slowly),
quickly - quicker (more quickly),
often - oftener (more often).
Oftener is used by a small number of writers in fiction. All the other registers use more often,
The qualitative adverbs well and badly have suppletive forms of comparison that are derived from different roots:
well - better - best,
badly - worse - worst.
The adverb far has two sets of degrees of comparison:
far -farther -farthest,
far -further -furthest.
In British English, both sets of degrees of comparison are used to refer to distance, with no difference of meaning:
I have to walk farther/further than him (V. Evans).
In American English, only farther is used in this sense.
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 4393; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!