Теоретическая грамматика английского языка 2 (стр. 29 из 54)
Apparently inconsistent with the function of the referent form is the accepted name "conditional" by which the form-type of consequence is designated in contrast to the actual form-type of condition ("subjunctive two").
The attempted survey of the system of the English mood based on the recent extensive study of it and featuring oppositional interpretations, has been aimed at bringing in appropriate correlation the formal and the functional presentations of its structure.
We have emphasized that underlying the unity of the whole system is the one integral form of the subjunctive standing in opposition to the one integral form of the indicative. The formal mark of the opposition is the tense-retrospect shift in the subjunctive, the latter being the strong member of the opposition. The shift consists in the perfect aspect being opposed to the imperfect aspect, both turned into the relative substitutes for the absolutive past and present tenses of the indicative. The shift has been brought about historically, as has been rightly demonstrated by scholars, due to the semantic nature of the subjunctive, since, from the point of view of semantics, it is rather a mood of meditation and imagination.
The term "subjunctive" itself cannot be called a very lucky one: its actual motivation by the referent phenomena has long been lost so that at present it is neither formal, nor functional. The mood system of unreality designated by the name "subjunctive" might as well be called "conjunctive", another meaningless term, but stressing the unity of English with other Germanic languages. We have chosen the name "subjunctive", though, as a tribute to the purely English grammatical tradition. As for its unmotivated character, with a name of the most general order it might be considered as its asset, after all.
The subjunctive, the integral mood of unreality, presents the two sets of forms according to the structural division of verbal tenses into the present and the past. These form-sets constitute the two corresponding functional subsystems of the subjunctive, namely, the spective, the mood of attitudes, and the conditional, the mood of appraising causal-conditional relations of processes. Each of these, in its turn, falls into two systemic sub-sets, so that at the immediately working level of presentation we have the four subjunctive form-types identified on the basis of the strict correlation between their structure and their function: the pure spective, the modal spective, the stipulative conditional, the consective conditional.
For the sake of simplifying the working terminology and bearing in mind the existing practice, the described forms of the subjunctive can be called, respectively, subjunctive one (pure spective), subjunctive two (stipulative), subjunctive three (consective), subjunctive four (modal spective, or modal subjunctive). The functional correlation of these forms can be shown on a diagram (See Fig 3).
FORMS OF THE SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD
The described system is not finished in terms of the historical development of language; on the contrary, it is in the state of making and change. Its actual manifestations are complicated by neutralizations of formal contrasts (such as, for instance, between the past indicative and the past subjunctive in reported speech); by neutralizations of semantic contrasts (such as, for instance, between the con-siderative modal spective and the desiderative modal spective); by fluctuating uses of the auxiliaries (would - should); by fluctuating uses of the finite be in the singular (were - was); etc. Our task in the objective study of language, as well as in language teaching, is to accurately register these phenomena, to explain their mechanism and systemic implications, to show the relevant tendencies of usage in terms of varying syntactic environments, topical contexts, stylistic preferences.
As we see, the category of mood, for all the positive linguistic work performed upon it, continues to be a tremendously interesting field of analytical observation. There is no doubt that its numerous particular properties, as well as its fundamental qualities as a whole, will be further exposed, clarified, and paradigmatically ordered in the course of continued linguistic research.
§ 1. The adjective expresses the categorial semantics of property of a substance. It means that each adjective used in the text presupposes relation to some noun the property of whose referent it denotes, such as its material, colour, dimensions, position, state, and other characteristics both permanent and temporary. It follows from this that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full nominative value. Indeed, words like long, hospitable, fragrant cannot effect any self-dependent nominations; as units of informative sequences they exist only in collocations showing what is long, who is hospitable, what is fragrant.
The semantically bound character of the adjective is emphasized in English by the use of the prop-substitute one in the absence of the notional head-noun of the phrase. E.g.:
I don't want a yellow balloon, let me have the green one over there.
On the other hand, if the adjective is placed in a nominatively self-dependent position, this leads to its substantivization. E.g.:
Outside it was a beautiful day, and the sun tinged the snow with red.
Cf.: The sun tinged the snow with the red colour.
Adjectives are distinguished by a specific combinability with nouns, which they modify, if not accompanied by adjuncts, usually in pre-position, and occasionally in post-position; by a combinability with link-verbs, both functional and notional; by a combinability with modifying adverbs.
In the sentence the adjective performs the functions of an attribute and apredicative. 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. There is, though, a profound difference between the predicative uses of the adjective and the noun which is determined by their native categorial features. 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. This can be shown on examples analysed by definitional and transformational procedures. Cf:.
You talk to people as if they were a group.→You talk to people as if they formed a group. Quite obviously, he was a frtend.→His behaviour was like that of a friend.
Cf., as against the above:
I will be silent as a grave.→I will be like a silent grave. Walker felt healthy.→Walker felt a healthy man. It was sensational. → That fact was a sensational fact.
When used as predicatives or post-positional attributes, a considerable number of adjectives, in addition to the general combinability characteristics of the whole class, are distinguished by a complemen-tive combinability with nouns. The complement-expansions of adjectives are effected by means of prepositions. E.g.: fond of, jealous of, curious of, suspicious of; angry with, sick with; serious about, certain about; happy about; grateful to, thankful to, etc. Many such adjectival collocations render essentially verbal meanings and some of them have direct or indirect parallels among verbs. Cf.: be fond of - love, like; be envious of - envy; be angry with - resent; be mad for, about - covet; be thankful to - thank.
Alongside other complementive relations expressed with the help of prepositions and corresponding to direct and prepositional object-relations of verbs, some of these adjectives may render relations of addressee. Cf.: grateful to, Indebted to, partial to, useful for.
To the derivational features of adjectives belong a number of suffixes and prefixes of which the most important are: -ful (hopeful), less (flawless), -ish (bluish), -ous (famous), -ive (decorative), -ic (basic); un- (unprecedented), in- (inaccurate), pre- (premature). Among the adjectival affixes should also be named the prefix a-, constitutive for the stative subclass which is to be discussed below.
As for the variable (demutative) morphological features, the English adjective, having lost in the course of the history of English all its forms of grammatical agreement with the noun, is distinguished only by the hybrid category of comparison, which will form a special subject of our study.
§ 2. All the adjectives are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative and relative.
Relative adjectives express such properties of a substance as are determined by the direct relation of the substance to some other substance. E.g.: wood - a wooden hut; mathematics - mathematical precision; history - a historical event; table - tabular presentation; colour - coloured postcards; surgery - surgical treatment; the Middle Ages - mediaeval rites.
The nature of this "relationship" in adjectives is best revealed by definitional correlations. Cf.: a wooden hut - a hut made of wood; a historical event - an event referring to a certain period of history, surgical treatment - treatment consisting in the implementation of surgery; etc.
Qualitative adjectives, as different from relative ones, denote various qualities of substances which admit of a quantitative estimation, i.e of establishing their correlative quantitative measure. The measure of a quality can be estimated as high or low, adequate or inadequate, sufficient or insufficient, optimal or excessive. Cf.: an awkward situation - a very awkward situation; a difficult task - too difficult a task; an enthusiastic reception - rather an enthusiastic reception; a hearty welcome - not a very hearty welcome; etc.
In this connection, the ability of an adjective to form degrees of comparison is usually taken as a formal sign of its qualitative character, in opposition to a relative adjective which is understood as incapable of forming degrees of comparison by definition. Cf.: a pretty girl - a prettier girl; a quick look - a quicker look; a hearty welcome - the heartiest of welcomes; a bombastic speech - the most bombastic speech.
However, in actual speech the described principle of distinction is not at all strictly observed, which is noted in the very grammar treatises putting it forward. Two typical cases of contradiction should be pointed out here.
In the first place, substances can possess such qualities as are incompatible with the idea of degrees of comparison. Accordingly, adjectives denoting these qualities, while belonging to the qualitative subclass, are in the ordinary use incapable of forming degrees of comparison. Here refer adjectives like extinct, immobile, deaf, final, fixed, etc.
In the second place, many adjectives considered under the heading of relative still can form degrees of comparison, thereby, as it were, transforming the denoted relative property of a substance into such as can be graded quantitatively. Cf:. a mediaeval approach - rather a mediaeval approach - a far more mediaeval approach; of a military design - of a less military design - of a more military design; a grammatical topic - a purely grammatical topic -the most grammatical of the suggested topics.
In order to overcome the demonstrated lack of rigour in the definitions in question, we may introduce an additional linguistic distinction which is more adaptable to the chances of usage. The suggested distinction is based on the evaluative function of adjectives. According as they actually give some qualitative evaluation to the substance referent or only point out its corresponding native property, all the adjective functions may be grammatically divided into "evaluative" and "specificative". In particular, one and the same adjective, irrespective of its being basically (i.e. in the sense of the fundamental semantic property of its root constituent) "relative" or "qualitative", can be used either in the evaluative function or in the specificative function.
For instance, the adjective good is basically qualitative. On the other hand, when employed as a grading term in teaching, i.e. a term forming part of the marking scale together with the grading terms bad, satisfactory, excellent, it acquires the said specificative value; in other words, it becomes a specificative, not an evaluative unit in the grammatical sense (though, dialectically, it does signify in this case a lexical evaluation of the pupil's progress). Conversely, the adjective wooden is basically relative, but when used in the broader meaning "expressionless" or "awkward" it acquires an evaluative force and, consequently, can presuppose a greater or lesser degree ("amount") of the denoted property in the corresponding referent. E.g.:
Bundle found herself looking into the expressionless, wooden face of Superintendent Battle (A. Christie). The superintendent was sitting behind a table and looking more wooden than ever (Ibid).
The degrees of comparison are essentially evaluative formulas, therefore any adjective used in a higher comparison degree (comparative, superlative) is thereby made into an evaluative adjective, if only for the nonce (see the examples above).
Thus, the introduced distinction between the evaluative and specificative uses of adjectives, in the long run, emphasizes the fact that the morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) is potentially represented in the whole class of adjectives and is constitutive for it.
§ 3. 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. as a class of words different from the adjectives in its class-forming features. 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 were generally considered under the heading of "predicative adjectives" (some of them also under the heading of adverbs), since their most typical position in the sentence is that of a predicative and they are but occasionally used as pre-positional attributes to nouns.
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, separate words making up this category, "words of the category of state"). Here belong the Russian words mostly ending in -o, but also having other suffixes: тепло, зябко, одиноко, радостно, жаль, лень, etc. Traditionally the Russian words of the category of state were considered as constituents of 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 of the corresponding meanings were subjected to a lexico-grammatical analysis and given the part-of-speech heading "category of state". This analysis was first conducted by BA. Ilyish and later continued by other linguists. The term "words of the category of state", being rather cumbersome from the technical point of view, was later changed into "stative words", or "statives".
The part-of-speech interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists working in the domain of English, and has found both its proponents and opponents.