1

THEME 4
ADJECTIVES

1. The categorial meaning of adjectives

2. Lexical/grammatical subclasses of English adjectives
3. The morphemic structure of English adjectives
4. The categories of English adjectives
4.1. The morphological category of degrees of comparison
4.2. The semantic category of intensity
5. The syntactic functions of English adjectives
6. The categorial status of a-adjectives

1. THE CATEGORIAL MEANING OF ADJECTIVES

The categorial meaning of adjectives is that of the property of a substance. It

can be the material of which the object is made, its color, dimensions, location in
space or state. Adjectives denote a permanent property, yet the degree of permanence
depends on the syntactic position of the adjective, Cf.: visible stars – the stars visible
(more permanent – less permanent). Adjectives do not possess a full nominative
value, an exception here being adjectives which denote color. Consider the following
examples by way of illustration.
(1) a. a small mouse (2) a. a good man
b. a small elephant b. a good meal
Example (1) shows that small can apply equally to an elephant or a mouse,
each of which (a small mouse vs. a small elephant) are radically different in terms of
their absolute dimensions. Similarly, the interpretation of good in example (2)
depends on the meaning of the noun it modifies. For instance, a good man might
possess attributes such as physical beauty, honour, providing for his family, and so
on, depending upon context. The sorts of qualities associated with a good meal,
however, are more likely to include the size of the portions, how tasty the food is, that
it consists of wholesome ingredients, and so on.

2. LEXICAL/GRAMMATICAL SUBCLASSES OF ENGLISH ADJECTIVES

English adjectives are divided into the "qualitative" and "relative"

lexical/grammatical subclasses. There is also a lexical/grammatical subclass of the
so-called a-adjectives, the linguistics status of which is going to be considered in
more detail in (6).
Qualitative adjectives denote various qualities of substances that admit of a
quantitative estimation, e.g. an awkward question – a very awkward question;
a difficult task – too difficult a task, a hearty welcome – not a very hearty welcome.
Relative adjectives denote such properties of a substance that are determined
by the direct relation of the substance to some other substance, e.g. a wooden hut =
the hut made of wood; a historical event = the event which went down in history; see
also: Siberian, rural, industrial, etc.
 2
The borderline between the two subclasses is fuzzy. Relative adjectives can
develop qualitative meanings, e.g. to be very English, to look more wooden than ever,
childish attitude; qualitative adjectives may in certain contexts denote group
affiliation, e.g. gay, red, black.

3. THE MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH ADJECTIVES

According to their morphemic structure, English adjectives are divided into the
base and derived ones. The productive stem-building morphemes are:
– suffixes: -ful (hopeful), -less (flawless), -ish (childish), -ous (famous), -ive
(decorative), -ic (basic), -y (watery), -able/-ible/- uble (remarkable, edible, soluble);
– prefixes: un-/im-/ir-/il- (unpredictable, inaccurate, irresponsible, illiterate),
pre- (premature), a-(ablaze).

4. THE CATEGORIES OF ENGLISH ADJECTIVES

4.1. The morphological category of degrees of comparison

When some property of a substance (object or phenomenon) is evaluated in

relation to a property of some other substance, one deals with the category of degrees
of comparison of adjectives, e.g. She is the oldest (in the family); my elder sister. The
marked forms (-er, -est) are systemically opposed to the non-marked ones.
Only qualitative adjectives enter the category of degrees of comparison.
The linguistic status of the so-called analytical degree of comparison merits
consideration. Thus quite a number of practical grammars state that there are two
ways of forming the degrees of comparison of adjectives:
 synthetic (suffixes -er, -est) (monosyllabic adjectives and disyllabic
adjectives except those ending in two plosives, e.g. more direct, rapt; or: disyllabic
with the stress on the second syllable or ending in -er, -y, -le, -ow; yet the rule is often
violated in the present-day English language, e.g. healthier – more healthy, nobler –
more noble, etc.)
 analytical (more and most).
One of the strongest arguments for this approach is that adjectival forms with
more and most are in complementary distribution with the -er , -est forms. Yet this
approach is not consistent due to the following considerations:
(1) more and most preserve their lexical meaning, in which they are contrasted
to less and least that denote the weakening of quality. The latter cannot be included
into the category of degrees of comparison because they do not have a grammatically
expressed synthetic parallel;
(2) there are the so-called “elative” more and most which intensify the
respective quality: e.g. a most important point. Following the line of reasoning in 1),
we cannot include them into the category of degrees of comparison (otherwise we
should consider including the combinations with very, extremely, etc.). Besides, the
adjectives that enter the morphological category of degrees of comparison can be
used in elative structures, too: e.g. a most brave action;
 3
(3) more and most modify adjectives (e.g. more attractive – less attractive;
very attractive – rather attractive), which means that they are related syntactically.
This is another argument against including the forms with more and most into the
category of degrees of comparison since, by definition, the elements of an analytical
form are not syntactically related.
Thus, following the traditional line of reasoning, only monosyllabic qualitative
adjectives and some disyllabic ones can be said enter the morphological category of
degrees of comparison. Yet the very existence of the term “analytical degrees of
comparison” is an argument for treating linguistic categories, morphological in
particular, as entities built according to the prototype principle. According to this
principle, there are "better" and "worse" examples among the members of a category.

4.2. The semantic category of intensity

It is obvious that properties of a kind may differ in their intensity, i.e.

evaluation in relation to some internal norm, e.g. She is too/very old. The category of
intensity is not a morphological one: it is semantic since it is not based on a regular
set of binary oppositions.

5. THE SYNTACTIC FUNCTIONS OF ENGLISH ADJECTIVES

In a sentence English adjectives can perform attributive or predicative syntactic

functions. Accordingly, they are divided into:
1) attributive only, e.g. the main reason, a total stranger, a runaway horse,
a daily newspaper, a constant companion;
There is a variety of the attributive position – the postposition. The adjectives
that can be used only in postposition (e.g. the bishop designate, the president elect)
semantically are very much like predicative adjectives. Most of English attributive
adjectives can be used both in pre- and postposition. Both perform a qualifying
communicative function but in postposition the property denoted is temporally
limited, e.g. the only river navigable – the only river that happens to be navigable at
the moment (temporally limited characterization); the only navigable river – the only
river that is navigable in those parts (temporally non-limited characterization);
2) predicative only, e.g. asleep, afraid, afloat, ablaze, etc.;
3) both attributive and predicative, e.g. an arguable point – this point is
arguable; a responsible man – this man is responsible.

The syntactic function The nature of the The aspect of the word
of the adjective property denoted which the adjective specifies
Attributive Temporally non-limited Conceptual
Predicative Temporally limited Referential/denotational

Fig. 6.1. Features of adjectives according to their syntactic function

 4
6. THE CATEGORIAL STATUS OF A-ADJECTIVES

There is a distinct group of English adjectives which are characterized by the

following features:
1) the lexical/grammatical meaning of state, namely, the psychological state of
a person, e.g. afraid, aghast; the physical state of a person, e.g. asleep, awake; its
location in space, e.g. afloat, asquint; the physical state of an object, e.g. afire,
abalze, aglow;
2) the prefix a-;
3) no grammatical categories;
4) combinabilty with link verbs, e.g. to be afraid;
5) the syntactic function of a predicative complement.
In the 60-70-s of the XXth century, certain scholars suggested that a-adjectives
are to be considered as a separate part of speech. B.A.Ilyish suggested a name for the
latter – the category of state words, B.S. Khaimovich and B.I.Rogovskaya called them
adlinks (Cf. adverbs/ad-verbs are combined with (notional) verbs, adlinks/ad-links –
with link verbs).
L.S.Barkhudarov puts forward the following arguments against this approach:
1) the state is a variety of the property of a substance;
2) as it were, a-adjectives are not totally excluded from the morphological
category of degrees of comparison and the lexical/semantic category of intensity,
Cf. Of all of us, Jack was the one most aware of the situation in which we found
ourselves; I saw that the adjusting lever stood far more askew that was allowed by
the direction;
4) the number of a-adjectives in English is relatively small: a couple dozen of
stable ones and perhaps twice as many of coinages.
Thus a-adjectives, though forming a unified set of words, do not constitute a
separate part-of-speech class which exists in English on a par with nouns, verbs,
adjectives, and adverbs. They should rather be treated as a subclass within the part-
of-speech class of adjectives.

FURTHER READING

1. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. – M., 2000. – P.197-222.

2. Khaimovich B.S., Rogovskaya B.I. A Course in English Grammar. – M., 1967. –
P.199-202.
3. Kobrina N.A. et al. An English Grammar: Morphology. – M., 1985. – P.215 – 225.
4. Rayevska N.M. Modern English Grammar. – K., 1976. – P.89-98.
5. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика
английского языка. – М., 1981. – С.34-39.
6. Морозова Е.И., Паповянц Э.Г. Методические указания и задания для
самостоятельной работы по курсу теоретической грамматики: Морфология. –
Харьков, 1989. – С.19-22.