The functional simulation and grammatical-morphological isolation must take place only against the background of the corresponding synthetic forms of the same word

To be able to differentiate between adjectives and participles in -ing, one must remember that in a participle there is reflected a certain characteristic feature of a process as taking place now, or in the past, while in an adjective this property is understood as permanent, most characteristic attribute. The striking thing about both Churchill’s war speeches and his book is how constantly he had to keep coming back to work on his sense of the nature of British life, of what it was that we were defending. (J. Robinson, The Survival of English)

Here striking does not refer to any process connected with speech production, but qualifies it as most important, essential, belonging to it per se.

4. Its functions of an attribute and a predicative complement (a hospitable man; seem happy; be nice to somebody; look ugly; become tired).

Adjectives are said to be a well-defined part of speech in Modern English. Of the two, the more specific function of the adjective is that of an attribute, since the function of a predicative can be performed by the noun as well. However, there is a difference between the adjective and the noun used predicatively. Namely, the predicative adjective expresses some attributive property of its noun referent, whereas the predicative noun expresses various substantival characteristics of its referent, such as its identification or classification of different types. It can be illustrated by the following examples:

e.g. He was a friend. → He behaved like a friend.

It was sensational. → That fact was a sensational fact.

5. 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. a class of words different from the adjectives in its class-forming features (B. A. Ilyish). 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 are generally treated as predicative adjectives, since their most typical position in the sentence is that of a predicative.

Notional words signifying states used as predicatives were identified as a separate part of speech in the Russian language by L. V. Scherba and V. V. Vinogradov. The newly identified part of speech was called “the category of state” and words making up this grammatical class were called words of the category of state. Here belong the Russian words like тепло, зябко, одиноко, жаль, лень и т.д.

On the analogy of the Russian “category of state”, the English qualifying a-words were subjected to a lexico-grammatical analysis and given the heading “category of state”. B. A. Ilyish was the first to conduct this analysis, later shared by B. I. Rogovskaya and B. S. Khaimovich. Their theses supporting this view are as follows:

a) the statives are opposed to adjectives on a purely semantic basis (adjectives denote qualities, statives denote states);

b) statives are characterized by the specific prefix a-;

c) they do not have the degree of comparison;

d) the combinability of statives is different from that of adjectives (they have no right-hand combinability with nouns). These are serious reasons worthy of note.

However, a closer consideration of the properties of the statives discloses the fundamental relationship between the adjectives and the statives, which makes us reconsider the status of English statives. For the lack of time and space we refer the reader to the book by M. Y. Bloch. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. 2003. – p. 224-229.

References:

1. Александрова О. В., Комова Т. А. Современный английский язык: морфология и синтаксис = Modern English Grammar: Morphology and Syntax: учеб. пособие для студ. лингв. вузов и фак. ин. яз. / О. В. Александрова и Т. А. Комова. – М.: «Академия», 2007. – С. 68-75.

2. Блох М. Я. Практикум по теоретической грамматике английского языка: Учеб. пособие / М. Я. Блох, Т. Н. Семенова, С. В. Тимофеева. – М.: Высш. шк., 2004. – С. 217-220.

3. Блох М. Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учеб. – 4 изд., испр. – М.: Высш. шк., 2003. – С. 220-237.

4. Жигадло В. Н., Иванова И. П., Иофик Л. Л. Современный английский язык / Теоретический курс грамматики. – М.: ИЛИЯ, 1956. – С. 37-44, 169-174.

5. Ильиш Б. А. Строй современного английского языка (Теоретический курс): Учеб. пособие. / Б. А. Ильиш. – М. – Л.: Просвещение, 1965. – С. 62-68; 79-81.

6. Хаймович Б. С., Роговская Б. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учеб. пособие. – М.: Высш. шк., 1967. – С. 75-86; 199-202.

THEME 18. THE ADVERB

Plan

1. The Adverb as part of speech.
2. Structural and semantic types of adverbs.
3. The category of comparison.
4. Derivation of adverbs.

The name “adverb” comes from Latin ad, meaning to, and verbum, meaning “a word”, “a verb”. According to some definitions, adverb is an indeclinable part of speech, the main function of which was to limit or extend the meaning of a verb. It adds more information about place, time, circumstance, manner, course, degree etc. to a verb, adjective and another adverb: to speak kindly, incredibly deep, just in time, too quickly.

There is very much in common between adjectives and adverbs, the relation of an adverb to a verb being like that of an adjective to a noun: to qualify, to limit, to individualize the meaning of the main word: e.g. a serious remark – to remark seriously; a simple answer – to answer simply.

Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.

Qualitative adverbs express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are adverbs in -ly: simply, rightly, openly, tightly, expressively, presently.

The adverb is a part of speech characterized by the following features:

1. The lexico-grammatical meaning of “qualitative, quantitative or circumstantial characteristics of actions, states or qualities”.
2. The category of degrees of comparison.
3. The typical stem-building affixes, as in tight-ly, side-ways, clock-wise, back-wards, a-shore etc.
4. Its unilateral combinability with verbs, adjectives, adverbs, less regularly with adlinks and nouns.
5. The function of adverbial complement, sometimes other functions.

Now we shall speak about each feature in detail.

The suffix -ly is agglutinatively added to any type of stem ending

in a vowel: austere-ly, entire-ly;

in a consonant (voiced): wise-ly;

in a sonant: grim-ly;

in a consonant (voiceless): spontaneous-ly.

In some words the final -e is dropped in writing: able – ably, double – doubly, gentle – gently, humble – humbly, due – duly, true – truly, whole – wholly (not to confuse with holy). But: lately, surely, strangely.

The quantitative adverbs include words of degree. These are specific lexical units of semi-functional nature expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. There are several sets of quantitative adverbs classed as intensifiers: of high degree: very, quite, entirely, utterly, highly, greatly, perfectly, absolutely, pretty, much; of excessive degree: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically; of unexpected degree: surprisingly, astonishingly, amazingly; of moderate degree: fairly, comparatively, relatively, moderately, rather; of low degree: slightly, a little, a bit; of approximate degree: almost, nearly; of optimal degree: enough, sufficiently, adequately; of inadequate degree: insufficiently, intolerably, unbearably, ridiculously; of underdegree: hardly, scarcely.

As we see, the degree adverbs, though usually described as “quantitative”, in reality make a specific variety of qualitative words or rather some sort of intermediate qualitative-quantitative words. In this function they differ from genuine quantitative adverbs which are directly related to the numerals and thereby form sets of words of pronominal character. Here belong twice, thrice, four times, twofold, threefold, manifold etc.

The third group of adverbs is circumstantial adverbs. Here belong adverbs of

time: soon, tomorrow, now and then, yesterday, daily, ever, now, ago;

frequency: often, seldom, again, ever, rarely;

relative place: near, far, everywhere, thereabout, hereto;

manner: well, accurately, badly, arm in arm;

negative implication: nay, nowise, hardly, never;

degree: almost (perfect), good (enough), (not) altogether (bad) etc.

There are numerous word-combinations that function like adverbs: in time, on time, at home, in Paris, at school, arm in arm, face to face, one by one etc.

As far as grammatical-morphological categories are concerned, we can hardly speak of them unless we give a status of a category to forms of degrees of comparison of some adverbs. Only few adverbs form them synthetically: early – earlier, earliest; often – oftener, oftenest; soon – sooner, soonest; comparison can be expressed analytically by repeating a word: again and again, by using another adverb for emphasis: just now, quite so. More adverbs (in -ly) take more and most to form degrees of comparison analytically: more friendly, most kindly, cf also with less friendly, least friendly: And it was, I think, by my generation, those who were young in the twenties, who grew up not during, but immediately after the First World War, that his (Elliot’s) influence was most deeply felt*.

It may be said that cross-classes morphological analysis can demonstrate some tendencies in form- and word-building. Thus, there are words:

hap _noun happy _adjective (noun + suffix) happily _adverb

hapless _adjective (noun + suffix) happiness _noun

haply _adverb (noun + suffix)

haphazard _{adjective/noun} (noun + noun)

perhaps _adverb (per + noun plural),

in Middle English by hap(s)

where hap means “a luck”, happiness can be said to be “a very great hap”; haphazard is “a risky chance”; happy denotes “a lucky situation, or chance”, while hapless denotes “an unlucky one”, both positive and negative implications in adjectives result in derived nouns: positive – happiness, doubtful – haphazard.

__________________________

*See: The Idea of Literature // Английский литературно-критический очерк (на англ. яз.) / сост. Д. М. Урнов – М., 1979. – С. 282.

Another possible dimension of semantic (and morphological) categorization is a clear-cut, systemic way of referring to a more distant and less distant place, direction:

here there where nowhere

hither thither whither

ever never

Among the various types of adverbs, those formed from adjectives by means of the suffix -ly occupy the most representative place and pose a special problem.

The problem is caused 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.

e.g. simple – simply

right – rightly

expressive – expressively

present – presently

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

However M. Y. Bloch, admitting the strong point of the adjectival interpretation of qualitative adverbs in -ly, believes that the whole problem is not the problem of part-of-speech identity; it is a problem of inter-class connections, in particular, of inter-class division of functions and of the correlative status of the compared units in the lexical paradigm of nomination.

References:

1. Александрова О. В., Комова Т. А. Современный английский язык: морфология и синтаксис. = Modern English Grammar: Morphology and Syntax: учеб. пособие для студ. лингв. вузов и фак. ин. языков / О. В. Александрова, Т. А. Комова. – М.: Изд. центр «Академия», 2007. – С. 75-77.

2. Блох М. Я. Практикум по теоретической грамматике английского языка: Учеб. пособие / М. Я. Блох, Т. Н. Семенова, С. В. Тимофеева. – М.: Высш. школа, 2004. – С. 220-222.

3. Блох М. Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учеб., 4 изд., испр. – М.: Высш. шк., 2003. – С. 238-246.

4. Жигадло В. Н., Иванова И. П., Иофик Л. Л. Современный английский язык: Теоретический курс грамматики: Учебн. – М.: ИЛИЯ, 1956. – С. 175-180.

5. Ильиш Б. А. Строй современного английского языка: Теоретический курс: Учебное пособие. – М. –Л.: Просвещение, 1965. – С. 152-154.

6. Кверк Р., Гринбаум С., Лич Дж., Свартвик Я. Грамматика современного английского языка для университетов. = Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A University Grammar of English / Под редакцией И. П. Верховской. – М.: Высш. шк., 1982. – С. 118-122; 127-128.

7. Смирницкий А. И. Морфология английского языка. – М.: ИЛИЯ, 1959. С. 282.

8. Хаймович Б. С. Роговская Б. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учебное пособие. – М.: Высшая школа, 1967. – С. 86-92.