ent from that of adjectives in so far as they are not used in the pre-positional attributive function, i.e. are characterized by the absence of the right-hand combinability with nouns.
The advanced reasons, presupposing many-sided categorial estimation of statives, are undoubtedly serious and worthy of note. Still, a closer consideration of the properties of the analysed lexemic set cannot but show that, on the whole, the said reasons are hardly instrumental in proving the main idea, i.e. in establishing the English stative as a separate part of speech. The re-consideration of the stative on the basis of comparison with the classical adjective inevitably discloses (lie fundamental relationship between the two, - such relationship as should be interpreted in no other terms than identity on the part-of-speech level, though, naturally, providing for their distinct differentiation on the subclass level.
The first scholar who undertook this kind of re-consideration of the lexemic status of English statives was L. S. Barkhudarov, and in our estimation of them we essentially follow his principles, pointing out some additional criteria of argument.
First, considering the basic meaning expressed by the stative, we formulate it as "stative property", ie a kind of property of a nounal referent. As we already know, the adjective as a whole signifies not "quality" in the narrow sense, but "Property", which is categorially divided into "substantive quality as such "and" substantive relation ". In this respect, statives do not fundamentally differ from classical adjectives. Moreover, common adjectives and participles in adjective-type functions can express the same, or, more specifically, typologically the same properties (or "qualities" in a broader sense) as are expressed by statives.
Indeed, the main meaning types conveyed by statives are:
the psychic state of a person ( afraid, ashamed, aware ); the physical state of a person ( astir, afoot ); the physical state of an object ( afire, ablaze, aglow ); the state of an object in space ( askew, awry, aslant ). Meanings of the same order are rendered by pre-positional adjectives. Cf .:
the living predecessor - the predecessor alive ; eager curiosity - curiosity agog ; the burning house - the house afire; a floating raft - A raft afloat ; a half-open door - a door adjar ; slanting ropes - ropes aslant ; a vigilant man - a man awake ;
similar cases - Cases alike ; an excited crowd - a crowd astir . br/>
It goes without saying that many other adjectives and participles convey the meanings of various states irrespective of their analogy with statives. Cf . such words of the order of psychic state as despondent, curious, happy, joyful ; such words of the order of human physical state as sound, refreshed, healthy, hungry ; such words of the order of activity state as busy, functioning, active, employed , etc.
Second, turning to the combinability characteristics of statives, we see that, though differing from those of the common adjectives in one point negatively, they basically coincide with them in the other points. As a matter of fact, statives are not used in attributive pre-position. but, like adjectives, they are distinguished by the left-hand categorial combinability both with nouns and link-verbs. Cf .:
The household was nil astir . - The household was all excited - It was strange to see (the household active at this hour of the day. - It was strange to see the household active at this hour of the day.
Third, analysing the functions of the stative corresponding to its combinability patterns, we see that essentially they do not differ from the functions of the common ad-jective. Namely, the two basic functions of the stative are the predicative and the attribute. The similarity of functions leads to the possibility of the use of a stative and a common adjective in a homogeneous group. Eg .: Launches and barges moored to the dock were ablaze and loud with wild sound.
True, the predominant function of the stative, as different from the common adjective, is that of the predicative. But then, the important structural and functional peculiarities of statives uniting them in a distinctly separate set of lexemes cannot be disputed. What is disputed is the status of this set in relation to the notional parts of speech, not its existence or identification as such.
Fourth, from our point of view, it would not be quite consistent with the actual lingual data to place the stative strictly out of the category of comparison. As we have shown above, the category of comparison is connected with the func...
