1.3. The category of Comparison
The category of adjectival comparison gives a relative evaluation of the quantity of a quality. The category is constituted by the opposition of the three forms (degrees of comparison):
1. the basic form (positive degree) – shows that the quality exists but is not stated in any relation to a similar quality in any other being or thing;
2. the comparative degree form – has the feature of restricted superiority (which limits the comparison to two elements only);
3. the superlative degree form – has the feature of unrestricted superiority.
On the upper level of presentation there is the opposition of the superiority degrees (the marked member) against the positive degree (the unmarked member). On the lower level of presentation there is the comparative degree (the weak member) against the superlative degree (the strong member) – a gradual ternary opposition.
The synthetical forms of comparison (in inflexions -er and -(e)st) coexist with the analytical forms of comparison (the auxiliaries more and most).
The analytical forms of comparison (used with the evaluative adjectives that, due to their phonemic structure /two-syllable words with the stress on the first syllable ending in other graphophonemic complexes than -er, -y, -le, -ow or words of more than two-syllable composition) cannot normally take the synthetical forms of comparison) perform a double function:
they are in categorial complementary distribution with the synthetical comparison forms;
they are used to express emphasis, thus complementing the synthetical forms in the sphere of this important stylistic connotation (E.g.: The audience became more and more noisy, and soon the speaker's words were drowned in the general hum of voices).
The less/least-combinations constitute specific forms of comparison – forms of reverse comparison. Therefore the whole category includes not three, but five different forms, making up the two series:
1) direct
2) reverse.
The reverse superiority degrees are of far lesser importance than the direct one and the reverse comparatives and superlatives tend to be rivalled in speech by the corresponding negative syntactic constructions.
1.4. The problem of the stative
Among the words signifying properties of a noun there is a lexemic set which claims to be recognised as a separate part of speech as different from the adjectives (the words built up by the prefix a- and denoting different states, mostly of temporary duration: afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze).
In traditional grammar these words were generally considered under the heading of predicative adjectives.
Notional words signifying states and specifically used as predicatives were first identified as a separate part of speech in the Russian language by L. V. Shcherba and V. V. Vinogradov. The two scholars called the newly identified part of speech the category of state (and, correspondingly, words of the category of state: тепло, зябко, одиноко, радостно, жаль, лень, etc.). Traditionally the Russian words of the category of state were considered to belong to the class of adverbs, and they are still considered as such by many Russian scholars.
On the analogy of the Russian category of state, the English qualifying a-words were given the part-of-speech heading category of state (B. A. Ilyish) and the term used for words constituting this category was later changed into stative words/statives.
The part-of-speech interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists working in the domain of English. Usual arguments given pro separating them into a part of speech are as follows (B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya: 1) the statives (ad-links) are opposed to adjectives on a purely semantic basis (adjectives denote qualities, and statives-adlinks denote states); 2) statives-adlinks are characterised by the specific prefix a-; 3) they do not possess the category of the degrees of comparison; 4) they are not used in the pre-positional attributive function,
This view of the stative was not supported by any special analysis and formed on the grounds of mere surface analogies and outer correlations. The later semantic and functional study of statives (their inner properties, historical productivity, systemic description) showed that statives, though forming a unified set of words, do not constitute a separate lexemic class existing in language on exactly the same footing as the noun, the verb, the adjective, the adverb. It should be looked upon as a subclass within the general class of adjectives since statives are not directly opposed to the notional parts of speech taken together, but are quite particularly opposed to the rest of adjectives.
Therefore the general subcategorisation of the class of adjectives is effected on the two levels:
on the upper level the class is divided into the subclass of stative adjectives and common adjectives;
on the lower level the common adjectives fall into qualitative and relative.