Adjectives and Comparison in English 1985

8/12/2019 Adjectives and Comparison in English 1985

1/221

djectives and

om par isonin nglish Semant ic Study

a n u s i e c k i


2/221

LONGMAN LINGUISTICS LIBRARY

Genera l ed i to r sR. H. Robins University of LondonMartin Harr is University of Salford

TITLE NO

2 General LinguisticsAn Introductory SurveyT h ir d E d it io n

R. H. ROBINS

6 A short History of LinguisticsS e c o n d Edition

R. H. ROBINS

12 Phonetics in LinguisticsA Book o f ReadingsEDITED B Y W. E. J O N E S AND LAVER

13 Structural Aspects of LanguageChangeJ A M E S M . A N DE RS ON

14 Philosophy and the Nature ofLanguageDAVID E. C O O P E R

15 Semant ico -Syn taxFRANS LIEFRINK

18 The English VerbF. R. PALMER

19 Principles of Firthian Linguistics

T. F. MITCHELL

20 Problems in French SyntaxTransformational-GenerativeS t u d i e sNICOLAS RUWETTRANSLATED BY SHEILA M.ROBINS

21 Te x t a n d C o n t e x t Explorations in Semantics

and Pragmatics of DiscourseTEUN A. VA N DIJK

22 The Evolution of French SyntaxA Comparative ApproachMARTIN HARRIS

23 Modali ty and the English ModalsF. R. PALMER

2 4 G r i m m s Grandch i l d r enCurrent Topics in GermanLinguisticsTHOMAS HERBST

DAVID HEATH.HANS-MARTIN DEDERDING

25 Explanation in LinguisticsThe Logical Problem of LanguageAcquisitionEDITED BY NORBERTH O RN S TE IN A N D DAVID

LIGHTFOOT

26 Introduct ion to Text LinguisticsROBERT-.ALAIN DEBEAUGRANDE ANDWOLFGANG ULRICH DRESSLER

27 Spoken DiscourseA Model for AnalysisWILLIS EDMONDSON

28 PsycholinguisticsLanguage Mind and WorldDANNY D. STEINBERG

29 DialectologyW . N. FRANCIS

30 Principles of PragmaticsG . N. LEECH

31 Adjectives and Comparison inEnglishA Semantic StudyJA N RUSIECKI


3/221

djectives and omparison nglish semant ic s tudy

n Rusiecki

L O N G M NLONDON ND NEW YORK


4/221

LONGMAN GROUP LIMITEDLongman House Burnt Mill, Harlow

Essex CM20 2JE, England

Associated companies throughout th e world

Pub l i shed in the United Sta tes o f Americaby Longman Inc., Ne w York

Longman Group Limited 1985

ll rights reserved; no part ofthis publication may bereproduced stored in a retrieval system or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying recording, or otherwise, without the

prior written permission of the Publishers.

First published 1985

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Rusiecki JanAdjectives and comparison in English. -

Longman Linguistics Library

1. English language - Adjectives 2. Englishlanguage - Semantics 3. English language -Comparison

I. Tit le4 2 2 PEI241

I S B N D S f i S E T i a l l

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Rusiecki Jan.Adjectives and comparison in English.

Longman linguistics library; title no. 31Bibliography: p.Inc ludes index.

1. nglish language - Adjectives. 2. nglish languageComparison. 3. English language - Semantics. I. Title.

II. Ser i e s .PE1241 .R87 1 9 8 4 4 2 5 84 3918

ISBN 0-582-29129-1 pbk.

Set in 10/11 pt Linotron 202 Times

Printed in Singapore bySelector Printing Co Pte Ltd


5/221

o n t n t s

Typographical conventions xiPreface xiii

1 Gradableand non gradableadjectives: preliminarydes ription i

1.1 The adjective as a grammatical category i1 2 Gradability 31.3 Typesof scales 51.4 Relativity 81 5 The marked/umnarkedopposition 131 6 Numericaland non numerical adjectives 15

2 Comparatives and positives 232 1 Form relativityand scale relativity 23

2 2 Problemsof derivation of comparatives 252.3 Problemsof interpretation of the positive degree form 7

2 4 Set theoretical interpretation of relative adjectives

3 Typology of sentences witii gradable adjectives inpredicativefunction 423.1 Introductory remarks 423.2 Non comparative sentences 42

3.3 Comparativesentences 433 3 1 General description 433 3 2 Comparative sentencesof linear difference 44

3.3.2.1 >ierthan sentences 44


6/221

VI CONTENTS

3.3.2.2 Les s^ than sentences 453.3.2.3 -4est sentences 46

3.3.3 Comparative sentences of proportionality as .4 as sentences) 47

3.4 Pseudo-comparative sentences 483.5 Subclassification of sentence types 49

4 Elicitation t es t s 584.1 General information 584.2 Description of test items 594.3 The results and their interpretation 65

5 Non-comparative sen tences witli gradableadject ives in predicat ive function 685.1 Type A sentences: positive statements 68

5.1.1 Open-scale, primary numerical antonymicpjiirs 68

5.1.2 Open-scale, secondary numerical antonjrmicpairs 75

5.1.3 Bounded-scale antonymic pairs 755.1.4 Asymmetric antonymic pairs and

quasi-antonymic pairs 775.2 Type A sentences: negative statements 775.3 Type B sentences: positive statements 78

5.3.1 Open-scale antonymic pairs 785.3.2 Bounded-scale antonymic pairs 815.3.3 Asymmetric antonymic pairs 825.3.4 Quasi-antonymic pairs 835.3.5 Unary-scale adjectives 83

5.4 Type B sentences; negative statements 845.5 Non-comparative forms of gradable adjectives used

in attr ibutive function 86

6 Comparative sentences of linear difference: Aert h n s e n t e n c e s 886.1 In t roduct ion 88

6.1.1 A ef and more A comparatives: corpusevidence 88

6.1.2 Aer than sentences: general description 89

6.2 Sentences with members of open-scale antonymicpairs: positive statements referring to one dimension 926.2.1 The difference between the values of the M d

not stated numerically type C sentences) 926.2.2 The difference between the values of the M d

stated numerically type D sentences) 103


7/221

C O N T E N T S V U

6.3 Sentences with members of open-scale antonymicpairs: positive statements referring to twod i m e n s i o n s 106

6.3.1 General description 1066.3.2 Sentences based on one-argument propositions

types E and F) 1086.3.3 Sentences based on two-argument propositions

Types G and H) 1106.4 Sentences with members of open-scale antonymic

pairs: negative statements 6.4.1 The difference between the values of the Md

not stated numerically type C sentences) 1106.4.2 The difference between the v{ilues of the Md

stated numerically type D sentences) 1126.5 Sentences with members of bounded-scale

antonymic pairs 1136.6 Sentences withasymmetric-scale adjectival pairs 46.7 Sentenceswith quasi-antonymic adjectivalpairs and

with unary-scale adjectives 1186.8 Comparative-degree forms of adjectives used in

attributive function 1246.9 Pseudo-comparative >ier than sentences 126

7 Comparat ive sen tences of l inear difference: l e ss Athan sentences and superlative degree sentences 4est sentences) 97;I Less ^ than sentences 129

7.1.1 Less A phrases and lessA than sentences:general discussion 9

7.1.2 LessA than sentences with the various typesof adjectives 37.2 /4est sentences 135

7.2.1 Introduction 1357.2.2 The inflected superlative-degree forms: corpus

evidence 1357.2.3 The periphrastic sueprlative-degree forms:

corpus evidence 1367.2.4 Semantic interpretation of sentences with

superlative-degree forms used in the relativesense 137

7.2.5 Semantic interpretation of sentences withsuperlative-degree forms used in the absolutesense most A superlatives) 140

7.3 Pseudo-comparative less^ than sentences 141


8/221

m CONTENTS

8 Comparative sentences of proportionality as A assentences) 1438.1 Introduction 143

8.1.1 As A as sentences: general description 1438.1.2 Corpus evidence 144

8.2 Sentences with members of open-scale antonymicpairs: positive statements referring to one dimension type R and type S sentences) 1458.2.1 Introductory remarks 1458.2.2 Type R and type S sentences with the

unmarked members of antonymic pairs 1468 .2 .2 .1 h e v a l u e o f t h e r a t i o b e t w e e n t h e

v a l u e s o f t h e m e a s u r e f u n c t i o n

interpreted as equalling approximately n 146

8 .2 .2 .2 h e v a l u e o f t h e r a ti o b e t w e en t h e

va lues o f t h e m e a s u r e func t ioninterpreted as equal or greater than nor equal or less than n ) 153

8.2.3 Type S sentences with the marked members ofantonymic pairs 155

8.3 Sentences with members of open-scale antonymicpairs: positive statements referring to twodimensions 157

8.3.1 General description 1578.3.2 Sentences based on one-argument propositions

types T and U) 1588.3.2.1 Sentences with the unmarked

members of antonymic pairs 158

8.3 .2 .2 Sentences with the marked membersof antonymic pairs 1608.3.3 Sentences based on two-argument propositions

types V and W) i6 i8.4 Sentences with members of open-scale antonymic

pairs: negative statements 1628.5 Sentences with members of bounded-scale

antonymic pairs 1688.5.1 Positive statements 168

8.5.2 Negative statements 1708.6 Sentences with members of asymmetric-scaleadjectival pairs 171

8.7 Sentences with quasi-antonymic adjectival pairs andwith unary-scale adjectives 174


9/221

CONTENTS IX

8.7.1 Positive statements 1748 7 2 Negativestatements 76

8.8 Pseudo comparative asA as sentences 78

9 Overview i 8 i9 Factors inthe semantic analysis of sentenceswith

gradable adjectives i8i9.2 Coda 190

References I93I n d e x 9


10/221


11/221

ypogr phic l conventions

The typographical conventions employed in this study are verysimilar to those introduced by John Lyons; cf Lyons 1977 and 1981 .

ingl quotation marks are usedfor lexemes, phrases, and sentences; ie for expressions with both form and meaning.

Double quotation marks are used for meanings and propositions. They also enclose quotations from other authors.Italics re used for forms as distinct from form plus meaning

expressions , for certain mathematical nd logical symbols, forforeign mostly Latin words and phrases, and for emphasis.

Bold type is used for technical terms, when first introduced.In quotations from other authors, the original typographical

conventions h ve usually been preserved.


12/221


13/221

P r e f a c e

This study is an attempt at presenting a unified approach to thesemantics of gradable adjectives in English in all their forms: thepositive degree the comparative degree and the superlative degree; and in all their uses: both as predicates of sentences and asattributes in noun phrases. Although English is the principal areaof study occasional references are made to other languages aswell. A theoretical interpretation of the semantics of gradableadjectives done in set theoretical terms is checked against twosources of information on the use of those adjectives by nativespeakers of English: the University College London Survey of nglish Usage corpus and the results of elicitation tests carried out inLondon in the years 1978 and 1979. A new typology of gradableadjectives is proposed and a detailed description is given of thesemantics of sentences with the different types of adjectives in the

positive comparative and superlative degree forms. Semanticrelationships between adjectival constructions traditionally considered synonymous are investigated and some comments areoffered on the hmitations on the use of formal logic in Unguisticdescription.

My thanks are due to all those colleagues by whose advice guidance and criticism I benefited in writing this book. I am particularly deeply indebted to two of them. On e is Randolph Quirk who

read and criticised the first draft of the book and helped with theplanning and execution of the elicitation tests. Th e other one isGeoffrey Leech whose detailed critical comments on an earlierversion of the first five chapters considerably helped me in rewriting the text. o r remarks on earUer drafts I am also very grateful toGabriele Stein an d Wolf Dietrich Bald. Th e book in its present


14/221

XIV PREFACE

form owes a great deal to William H Cook and Thomas Wachtelwho gave generously of their time and read the penultimate version of the manuscript making numerous valuable suggestions forimprovement The final version benefited by the remarks of theeditors: R H Robins and Martin Harris Special thanks are dueto Kathleen Wales for her kind help with part of the elicitationtests ina y I wish to state my indebtedness to Olgierd AdrianWojtasiewicz who got me interested in formal linguistics andhelped clarify some of the concepts embodied in the book

Naturally I alone am responsible for any errors omissions andother shortcomings of the text

The research for this study would not have been possible without the generosity of the Longman Group thanks to whom I wasable to spend an academic year at the Survey of English Usage asa Longman scholar

Warsaw J RMay igSs


15/221

Chapter 1

Gradable and non gradable adjectives:preliminary description

1.1 The adject ive as a grammat ica l category

The adjective as a grammatical category a part of speech) isrelatively easy to defee in an iniSectional language, such as Latinor Polish, where it is characterized morphologically by paradigmatic sets of endings. Even in such languages, however, some

adjectival paradigms are identical with nominal paradigms c/Latin servus bonus ), thus making it necessary to add otherdefinitional criteria to the strictly morphological ones. In alanguage like nglishthe adjective isafu^y category which canonly be defined by a set of complementary criteria, morphologicaland syntactic, some of which apply to all adjectives, and some tocertain adjective classes only. A good example of such a definition of the adjective can be found in Quirk et al. 1972:231): .

Four features are generally considered to be characteristic ofadjectives:1. They can freely occur in attributive position, ie they can premod-

ify a noun, eg: happy in the happy children.2. They can freely occur in predicative position, ie they can function

as subject complement, eg: old in The man seemed old, or asobject complement, eg: ugly in He thought the painting ugly.

3. They can be premodified by the intensifier very eg; The childrenar e very happy.

4. They can take comparative and superlative forms, whether inflec-tionally, eg: The children are happier now. They are the happiestpeople I know, or by addition of the premodifiers more and most periphrastic comparison), eg: These students are more intelligent. They are the most beautiful paintings I have ever seen.

However not all words that are traditionally regarded as adjectivespossess all of these four features. Moreover, some of the features apply


16/221

2 GRADABLE AND NON GRADABLE ADJECTIVES

to words that are generally considered to belong to other classes.

The last sentence in this quotation refers to the fact that in

English, and in many other languages, adjectives share certainproperties with adverbs and certain other properties with nouns.As observed above, in inflectional languages such as Latin orPolish the adjective is morphologically akin to the noun. InEnglish there are forms - such as criminal - which can functionboth as adjectives and as nouns c/ Quirk et al. 1972:240).However, adjectives differ from nouns, both in Latin and Polish,and in English, in that they cannot be used to express argumentsin propositions.^

S) ntactically, most English adjectives can function both assubject and object complements, ie predicatively, and as modifiers in noun phrases, ie attributively. Apart from this central classof adjectives - to be called henceforth central adjectives - thereare two subclasses. First, there is a group of words, traditionallyincluded in the adjective class, which can only function in attributive position. They are all non-inherent in the sense of Quirketal. 1972:259): some of them are semantically close to adverbials

{eg former as in my former friend , mere as in mere repetition ), others resemble determiners {eg certain , as in a certainperson ). Secondly, there are adjectives which are restricted topredicative position. Most of them can take complementation, eg glad that, to, about, of) ; some of them, indeed, must do so, eg aware that, of) , tantamount to) .^

Semantically, the adjective seems to stand between the nounand the verb. This applies particularly to adjectives in predicatefunction. Occasionally, one and the same sense can be expressed,

within the same language, by a verb or an adjective. Thus theF nglish sentence John is ill can be translated into Latin or intoPolish in two different ways:

[la] Latin: NV loannes aegrotat.NvA loannes aegrotus est.

[lb] Polish: NV Jan choruje.NvA Jan jest chory.

Alternatively, one and the same sense is expressed in onelanguage by a verb and in another by an adjective, functioningas predicate; eg:

[2] Latin: NV loannes dormit.Polish: NV Jan ^pi.English: NvA John is asleep.


17/221

GRADABIUTY 3

Similar semantically equivalent constructions can also befound for adjectives and nouns:

[3] NvA John is Jewish.NvN John is a Jew.^

1.2 Gradability

Gradability is fundaraentaUy a semanticfeature, and it cuts acrossthe syntactic subcategorization of adjectives. An adjective isgradabie if it can be substituted for A in the following expressions:

[4] Act (or: more A) than s

A s

l ess A t n

the ^es t (or: most A) ofvery A^

The majority of attributive-only adjectives are non-gradable;eg mere , former . A handful of them are gradabie, eg old in an old friend , big in a big eater ; these are, in fact, centraladjectives used non-inherently. Among the predicative-onlyadjectives the majority are gradabie, eg afraid (that, of, about) , fond (of) ; but some are not, eg subject (to) , tantamount (toy.Among central adjectives some are gradabie (eg long , pretty )and some are not (eg dead , octagonal ). The interrelationbetween the syntactic subcategorization of adjectives and gradability is illustrated in Fig. i . i .

Gradability implies the existence of a scale in the semanticstructure of the adjective - a scale which grades the relevantdimension. Thus, for example, the adjectives old and yoimg are

terms on the scale of age the adjectives well and ill are termson the scale of (good) health ( well-being ) - and so on.The concept of scale seems to be one of the most primitive

concepts in language. It finds expression in the category ofnumber of nouns and adjectives: singular, dual, and plural. It isalso reflected in the category of tense of the verb - which is basedon the concept of time-scale.

Gradability is not a characteristic feature of adjectives only. Itis also characteristic of many adverbial forms; for example, time

adjuncts - cf earlier in:[5] John finished the job earlier than Peter (did)

or such amplifiers of verbs as much and more ^ eg:

[6] John likes Mary as much as he likes Jane.John likes Mary more t ha n P et er does.


18/221

1 7

2^

n o U R

G R A D A B L E A N D N O N G R A D A B L E ADJECTIVES

P r e d i c a t i v e

adjectives

A t t r i b u t i v e

adjectives

G r a d a b l e

adjectives

e a d

Octagonal

Subject to)Tantamount to)

Fond of)A f r a i d

that, of,about)

The concepts of gradability and scale are not alien to nominalconstructions either, but gfadability of nominals used as complements with intensive verbs in the sense of Quirk et al. 1972:2.5)is only of marginal significance; consider, for example:

[7] She is more a wife than a mother.

Gradability is a common feature of nominals in construction withextejasive verbs, eg\

] John earns more money than Michael does).This study, however, will deal with adjectives; and construc

tions with other parts of speech will be referred to only occasionally, to throw additional light on observations about adjectivalc o n s t r u c t i o n s


19/221

TYPES OF SCALES 5

1.3 Types of scales

A scale may be defined by just one adjective or by a pair of

adjectives. Scales defined by one adjective will be referred to asunary and adjectives defining them will be called imary-scaleadjectives. Examples: adjectives of colour ( red , green , etc.)and such adjectives as extravagant , cruel , 'beautiful'.^

Scales de^ed by pairs of adjectives will be termed binary. Todefine a scale, two adjectives must at least be gradable and comefrom the same lexical field, ie from a set of lexemes each of whichis in some respect semantically related to, but at the same timeincompatible with, any other lexeme in the set. Two adjectivesare incompatible^^ if they satisfy the following entailment formula

[9] NPi is NPi is not A

where NP is a noun phrase, A and A are adjectives, signalsthe relation of logical entailment, and , is a marker signallingthe identity of (the referent of) the noun phrase on either sideof the entailment symbol.

Sentencesconstructed according to formula [9] are to be interpreted as exponents of underlying propositions. Thus the formulais to be understood as follows: The proposition underlying asentence formed by replacing NP with a noun phrase and A withan adjective in the sentence formula 'TVP is A entails the proposition underlying a sentence formed by replacing NP with thesame noun phrase as before and A with another adjective in thesentence formula iVP is not A All the entailment formulaein this study are to be understood in the same way, ie as referringto the underlying propositions.

Examplesof lexical fields may be found in the sets of adjectivesof shape and colour. Thus:

[loa] NPi is round ^ NPi is not square/triangular/hexagonaVbctagonal, etc.

[lob] NPi is red ^ NPi is not greer/blue/yellow/purple, etc.

However, [9] will not holdtrue ifforA wesubstitute an adjectivefrom a different lexical field; for example:

[11] NPi is round NPi is not blue.NPi is round ^ NPi is not warm.NPi is round ^ NPi is not wooden.

In these formulae the symbol ' ' is to be read does not entail .Membership of the same lexical field is not a sufficient


20/221

6 GRADABLE AND NON GRADABLE ADJECnVES

condition for any two gradable adjectives to define a scale.Adjectives of colour are gradable and constitute a lexical fieldyet pairs of them do not define binary scales; each adjective

defines a scale by itself - a unary one.For a pair of incompatible gradable adjectives A and A todefine a binary scale they must fulfil one more condition: theymust be at least semi-reciprocal. By at least is meant here thatthey may fail short of complete reciprocity. Two gradable adjectives are reciprocal if they satisfy the following pair of entailmentformulae t/Lyons 1968:464):

12a] NPi is Aer than NPj ^ NPj is ^ er than NPi

12b] NPj is A ex than NPi NPi is Aer than NPjwhere NPf and NPj are noun phrases, A and A are gradableadjectives from the same lexical field, and Atx stands for thecomparative-degree form of an adjective either inflectional /leror periphrastic more A ). Example:

[13] Mary is older than Jane Jane is younger than Mary.Jane is younger than Mary Mary is older than Jane.

We shall define as semi-reciprocal those pairs of gradable adjectives which satisfyone of the formulae in [12]. The pair economical : uneconomical can be quoted as an example. Thus, CarX is more economical than C ar Y does not entail Car Y is moreuneconomical than Car X , ie formula [12a] is not applicable,since both cars may be economical, both uneconomical, or onemay be economical and the other uneconomical:

[14] NP: is more economical than NPj ^ NPj is more uneconomical than NPi.

On the other hand, formula [12b] is applicable here:

[15] NPkis even) more uneconomical than NPi => NPi is moreeconomical than NPk.^

We are now in a postition to characterize binary scales morefully. To define a binary scale, a pair of adjectives must be: a) incompatible,

b) gradable, c) at least semi-reciprocal.

Pairsof adjectives defining binary scales will be symbolized thus:

Binary scales are of two kinds. Those which are defined byreciprocal pairs of adjectives will be termed antonymic c/Lyons


21/221

TYPES OF SCALES 7

1968:464; 1977:273), and the term antonymic will also be usedwith reference to the adjectives defining such scales. Scalesdefined by pairs which Me only semi-reciprocal will be referredto as quasi-antonymic, and the term will d so be used to refer tothe adjectives defining such scales. An example of a quasi-anto-nymic scale is that defined by the pair economical : uneconomical . Other exjunples: intelligent ; unintelligent , experienced : inexperienced , efficient : inefficient , honest : dishonest . As can be seen from these examples, inquasi-antonymic pairs of adjectives one element of the paircontains a negative prefix.

Antonymic scales are either syirmietric or asymmetric. Theasymmetric scales a re o pe n at one end but bounded at the other.Of the adjectives defining them, one signifies absence of a featuredenoted by the other one and signals the end of the scale: thezero-end. Examples; dry : wet/damp/humid , clean : dirty , smooth : rough ( dry = zero-wet , clean = zero-dii^ , smooth = zero-rough ). Other examples: well : ill/sick , sober : drunk , firesh : stal ranci(^addled , straight : curved .In the other direction the scale is open, since on asymmetric

scales there are no terms signalling that a feature is present to adegree which cannot be excelled: something like maximally wet , maximally dirty , maximally rough , etc.

Symmetric scales are the same at both ends: either open orbounded. The bounded symmetric scale stretches from 1 to zero:from complete presence to total absence of a feature. The typicalexample is the scale defined by the adjectival pair full : empty ;the feature referred to by these adjectives is fullness , ie the fraction of a container which is filled. The adjective full signals thatthe value of that fraction is i; with the adjective empty the valueo t h f rac t ion is z e r o .

The open S3rmmetric scale is the most typical of all the binaryscales, in that it is the kind of scale which is defined by the mostfrequently used antonymic pairs of adjectives - such as tall : short , old : young , heavy : light , good : bad .Open scales are open at either end: there are no terms on themwhich signal the beginning or the end of the scale.

A characteristic property of binary-scale adjectives is the factthat if an adjective from this class is semantically relevant to oneelement of a set of extraUnguistic entities, then the underlyingdimension - and the scale for it - is relevant to every element ofthe set. To put it differently: if one of the adjectives defining abinary scale can be predicated of an element of a class of things,then either this adjective or the other adjective from this pair oranother term from the same scale can be predicated of any other


22/221

8 GRADABLE AND NON-GRADABLE ADJECTIVES

element of that class. Thus binary-scale adjectives express properties characterizing all the elements of the relevant sets: allpeople have some height, all concrete objects have some weight,all cars can be described in terms of economy, etc ^ On the otherhand unary-scale adjectives are different in this respect; anadjective such as red can be predicated of a particular flower butneither it nor the scale it represents applies to all flowers. Similarly, an adjective such as beautiful , or cruel (to) can be predicated of some humans but neither it nor the scale it representsnecessarily applies to all humans.

Let us now return briefly to unary scales. Some of them may

at first sight seem binary. Consider, for example, the scaledefined by the adjective (in)flammable . Things may be more(in)flammable or less (in)flammable - down to the point ofzero-(in)flammability, when they become non-(in)flammable .Yet the adjectives (in)flammable and non-(in)flammable do notdefine a binary scale, even though they are incompatible: theadjective non-(in)flammable is not gradable and consequentlythe pair cannot be even semi-reciprocal. The scale is unary, onlybounded at the lower end, with the term *non-(in)flammablesignalling zero-value. In the other direction the scale is open. Letus caU such scales unary asymmetric. On the other hand scalesdefined by such adjectives as red or beautiful are open in bothdirections; they have no lexically marked beginning or end. Letus call th em u nary symmetric.

Types of scales and classes of adjectives defining them arepresented graphically in Fig. 1.2.

1.4 Relativity

Most gradable adjectives are characterized by relativity. Thismeans that when the comparative-degree form of an adjective isused in a sentence referring to two extralinguistic entities, it statesthe location of those entities on the scale relative to each otheranywhere on the scale. The comparative-degree form need nott h e r e f o r e r r t o t h s a m e se t o va lues o n t h sca le a s t h

positive-degree form; for example John is older than Peter doesnot entail John is old . This relativity of many gradable adjectivescan be expressed thus: an adjective A is relative^ if it satisfies thefollowing pair of negative entailment formulae:

[ 6] NPi is Aqt than NP, ^ NPi is ANPi is Act than NPj ^ NPi is not A


23/221

SC

anadev

d

nn

thm

UN RY

-d

ndb

sne

adev

AYMME

C

-b

dao

en

whn

gadbe

zoem

n

am

be

[n

{nam

he

SYMME

C

on

bhen

re

rQ

A

O

MIC

d

nd

sem-epo

prsoade

v

e

mc

u

mc

IN RY

d

ndb

-prsoade

v

-

inom

be

n

a

e

sem-epo

)

A

O

MIC

dnd

fuyepo

prsoadev

AYMME

C

onao

n

b

d

hoh

dyw

SYMME

C

hsam

abhen

H UR

12T

oscean

caeoadevd

nn

hm

r OUNDED

b

da

bhen

fu

em

y

OP

N

ona

bhn

ody

v


24/221

G R D B L E N D N O N G R D B L E A D J E C T I V E S

where Aer is the comparative form of an adjective either inflectional Aer or periphrastic more A . Thus, for example:

[17] John is older than Peter John is old.John is older than Peter ^ John is not old.

In actual fact formulae [16] admit the possibility of NPf being A,not A, or nei ther A nor not - so that all of the followingsentences are acceptable:

[18] John is older than Peter, he is eighty.John is older than Peter, he is forty-five.John is older t ha n P et er , he is six.

Those gradable adjectives which are not relative will be calledabsolute. An absolute adjective A will satisfy the following entail-m e n t fo rmula :

[19] NPi is Act than NPj ^ NPi is A.

As we shall see later {cf 6.i , unambiguously absolute adjectivesare not easy to find. For most speakers of English the adjectivewet is absolute; let it serve as a tentative example:

[20] My towel is wetter than yours ^ My towel is wet.

Consequently, for the majority of native speakers the followingsentence is unacceptable:

[21] My towel is wetter than yours but neither of our towelsis wet .

Note that our formulae defining relative and absolute adjectivesrefer to NPi, that is primum comparationis, to the right of theentailment symbol and use only the Aer type comparativesentence to the left of the entaihnent symbol Yet there areseveral different tjrpes of the relation of comparison and each ofthem involves two terms: primum comparationis and secundumcomparationis. The basic types can be represented symbolicallyas fol lows:

22a] X Ryier y-22b X RiessX y

22c] X R^est X22d JcRas^y

In [22c] the secundum comparationis is the set X of which x is ane lement .

Let 2 with an appropriate subscript symbolize the sentencetypes which represent the propositions reflecting the relations


25/221

R E L A T I V m

[22]. NP will symbolize the noun phrases which represent thearguments of the propositions.

3 a

23b23c23d

2er = NPi is Aer than NPjSiess = NPi is less A than NP,2est = NPi is the y4est in NP*2as = NPi is as A as NPj

where NP* represents the set of which the referent of NPi is amember. Each of these sentence types may be a term in threedifferent types of entailment formuiaei : 2 NPi isA , 2 ^ NPiis not A , and 2 NPi is >1 a 2 NPi is not A \ Analogicalformulae can be written for the second term of comparison; butonly where it is an element of a set (that element being represented by NPj), and not a whole set - which excludes 2est- Suchformulae will have NPj is A or WPy is not A to the right of theentaUment (or non-entailment) symbol. For each type of 2,except 2est, there are thus three theoretically possiblevariants ofentaUment formulae and two arguments in the propositions; thenumber of mathematically possible permutations is then 3^ = 9.

Let us illustrate this by drawing a matrix for Aei type comparatives (Table i . i . When 2 entaUs NPi is A \ we shdl symbolizethis with a plus; when 2 entails NPi is not A \ we shall symbolize

TABLE I .I A matrix for y4er type comparatives

E e r ^

NPj is A NPj is not A NPj is Aand Eer P

NPj isn o t A

Eer ^ NPi is A i) (t)Fully absolute

ii) ( )Semi -abso lu t e

iii +/_Weaklyabsolu te

Ee, => NPi isn o t A iv ;

(Not possible) V) CNegativelyabso lu t e

vi +/J(Not possible)

Eer t> NP, is Aa n d

Eer ^ NPi isn o t A

vii)C^ ~)(Not possible)

viii) C^/ )Semi- re la t ive

xjzFully relative


26/221


this with a minus; and when 2 does not entail either of these twopropositions, we shall symbolize this with a plus/minus sign,suggesting that since neither of the two alternatives is entailed,

either of them is possible. The same refers to the entailmentformulae with NPjas the exponent of) the argument in the propositions to the rightof the entaihnent or non-entailment) symbol.The plus or minus signs for the propositions with the primumcomparationis {NPi) will be put above those for the secundumcomparationis NPj).

Of the nine permutations of the er type relation of comparisonthree are not possible in language. The comparative degree formof an adjective cannot be used to express a feature which ispresent in the referent of) NPj but is, or may be, absent from the referentof) NPi. This eliminates variants iv), vi), and vii .

Of the remaining sixvariantsthe mostcharacteristic one is ix :it represents relativity in its most complete form. We can describethis variant by saying that adjectives which fit its formulae arecompletely value-neutral: A in the sentence formula WP, is Aerthan NP/ may refer to any value on the scale. Let us call suchadjectives fully relative. Typical representatives of this categoryare members of open-scale antonymic pairs. For examples see[i8] above and [24] below:

[24] Peter is younger than John, he is seventy-five.Peter is younger than John, he is forty.Peter is younger t ha n J oh n, he is five.

Variant viii) is typically represented by members of bounded-scale antonymic pairs, such as full : empty c/6.5 . Let us calladjectives which fit box viii) semi-relative.

Variants i), ii), and iii) represent three varieties of thatrelation characterizing gradable adjectives which we defined byformula [19] and called absolute. Adjectives which fit box i) willbe called fully absolute, those which fit box ii), semi-absolute,and those which fit box iii), weakly absolute. All these threeclasses will be discussed in Chapter 6, in particular in 6.6 and 6.7.

The remaining box in the matrix, box v), is characterized by -,-) enteiilment relations. This, as we sh^l see, is a rare occurrence; it will be discussed in 6.6. When an adjective is used this

way, we shall call it negatively absolute, thus extending theconcept absolute , which has so far been defined by formula [19].Adjectives which fit formula [19] will henceforth be called positively absolute with the three subcategories: fully absolute, semi-absolute, and weakly absolute), but whenever this can be donewithout creating ambiguity, the adverb positively will bedropped and the adjectives called simply absolute .


27/221

THE m a r k e d / u n m a r k e d OPPOSmON 13

1.5 The marked/unmarked opposition

In all open-scale antonymic pairs (and in some other binary-scale

pairs) one of the adjectives in the pair is the unmarked term,the other being marked. The unmarked term is characterizedby the fact that it has two functions: it can either signal a value -usually a high value - on the scale for the underlying dimensiondefinedby the antonymic pair; or it can be value-neutral, in whichcase it represents the underlying dimension as a whole. Note thathere value-neutrality characterizes the adjective in its positive-degree form. Consider the following dialogue:

[25] How

old isJohn?

H e s old: he s eighty-five.

In the question the adjective old is used in its value neutralsense: it only represents the dimension age . In the answer itsignals a high value on the dimension scale of age . Note thatsince old in the question is value-neutral, the answer might alsobe very different:

[26] How old is John?He s very young: he s only twelve.

The unmarked member of a binary-scale adjectival pair (in itsvalue-neutral function) can be identified in two ways:

(a) It represents the underlying dimension as a wholein questions about the value on the dimension-scale assigned to anextralinguistic entity; the question formula is:

[27] How A is NP?

For an example see [25] and [26].(b) In open scale antonymicpairs it represents the underlyingd i me n si o n a s a whole in statements of the value on the dimensionscale assigned to an entity - if that value is expressible in numerical terms (cf 1.6). Statements of this kind have the following o r m

[28] NP is n units A

where A is the unmarked member of an antonymic pair, from the

set {old tall, high long deep, wide thick . . .}, and n unitsis a phrase such as five years , six feet , etc. Example:[29] Johnny is five years old.Markedness is clearly related to relativity, but the relation is

unidirectional; to function as the unmarked member of an antonymic pair an adjective must b^ relative but not all relative


28/221


adjectives in antonymic pairs are unmarked - old is relative andunmarked, young is relative but marked.

It seems that in order to signal a high value on the dimension-

scale the unmarked member of an antonymic pair must be usedwithout any modifying morphemes, apart from intensifiers ornegators. Thus, when the expression n units old , or the forms older and oldest are predictated of some entity x, the resultingsentencesdo not entail jc is old . The sameis true of interrogativesentences with the expression How old? . These expressions andforms are value-neutral.^o To convey the meaning old we haveto use the form old on its own or, at most, preceded by suchintensifiers as very/rather/so , or by negators - such as not , hardly

The same seems to be true of adverbs of measure, ie thosewhich have a dimension-scale in their semantic structure. Thus,for example, in the following dialogue the adverb high is value-neutral, both in the question where it is preceded by How ) andin the answer where it is modified by the comparative-degreemorpheme); while its antonym, low , is not value-neutral.

[30] How high are we flying?

Very low: only a little higher than the tree-tops.Analogues of this phenomenon can be found in the semantics

of nouns expressing units of measurement - such as hour , day , year , mile . When these nouns are modified, they are value-neutral; thus we can say both:

[31] This will take many hour^day^years.It is many miles from here

a n d :[32] This will take only a few hour^day^years.

It is only a couple of miles from here.

However, when unmodified and used in the plural form),these nouns usually signal a high value on the relevant dimension-s c a l e :

{ ] This will take hours/day^years {ie a long time).It is miles from here {ie a long way from here).

Some names of dimensions can be used in a similar way:

[34] This is going to take time {ie a long time).

Names of dimensions behave in a similar fashion when they are


29/221

NUMERICAL AND NON-NUMERICAL ADJECTIVES 15

used as bases for derived adjectives:

[35] lengthy: of considerable length

aged: of great agesizeable o f considerable s izeweighty: of great weightpricey: of high price

An ana logue can also be found in the semantics of verbs fromt h e s m e s e m a n t i c a r e a :

[36] This car wiU last (ie last long).This will cost you (ie cost a lot).

1.6 Numerical and non-numerical adjectives

Scales may be either graded numericaUy or ungraded. Anexample of the former kind can be the scde of age, graded inyears (months, weeks days etc.) and represented by the antonymic pair 'old' : 'young'. An example of the latter kind can bethe - normally - ungraded scale represented by the antonymicpair 'fat' : 'slim'. Let us call those adjectives which representnumerically graded scales, numerical adjectives, and those whichrepresent other scales, non-numerical adjectives.

Numerical adjectives can be identified by the fact that they canbe substituted for A in the following sentence formula:

[37] ^Pi is n units ^er than NPjwhere Aqt is the comparative degree form of either member of

an antonymic pair, and 'n units' is a numerical expression like'six feet', ' three years', ' ten pounds', etc. For example:

[38] Mark is sbc inches taller than Peter.

Most - but not all - numerical adjectives can also be used insentences constructed according to formula [28], ie: NP is n unitsA' (where A is the unmarked member of the antonymic pair). Weshall repeat here the example numbered [29]:

[29] Johnny is five years old.

The boundary between numericzd and non ^numerical adjectivesis vague and easily crossed. Class-membership of adjectives inrespect of these two subclasses varies from speaker to speakerand is a function of the degree of technological advancement onthe societal plane and of the degree of education on the personal


30/221

GRADABLE ND NON-GRADABLE ADJECTIVES

plane. There is a hard core of antonymic pairs of adjectives whichare numerical for virtually all nat ive speakers of English. Thesepairs - all of them open-scale - are listed below, with the nameof the underlying dimension and the relevant units of measurement added in parentheses against each antonymic pair.

[39] tall: short height: inche^feeVcentimetreVmetres^long : short length: inche^feeVyards/miles/metres/

kilometres)high : low height: inche^fee^centimetres/metres)wide : narrow width: as abovedeep : shallow depth: inches/fee^fathoms/metres)

thick : thin thickness: inche^feel/milUmetres/metresold : young age: day^week^months/yearslate : early relative time: second^minutesj/hour^

day^weeks/month^yearslong : shorvbrief duration: as aboveheavy : light weight: pounds/stone/Mam^/kilogramsfast: slow speed: miles per hour^ietresper seconc /

kilometres per hour/knots)dear/expensive : cheap price: pound^pence

To these should be added two interlocking antonymic paus ofadjectives of temperature:

[40] otW . temperature: degrees F/degreesC)^^

The numerical adjectives listedaboverefer to objectively measurable physical parameters of things some linguists call themparametric adjectives; cf Boguslawski 1975 . We shall call themprimary numerical adjectives. Many people their number isgrowing with the spread of education would add to their list suchantonymic pairs as the following:

[41] loud : soft loudness: decibelsnoisy : quiet noise: decibelslight: dark light: lumensbright: dim brightness: luxes)

Numerical adjectives seem to typify the class of antonymicadjectives as a whole; perhaps even the class of gradable adjectives as a whole. Progress in science and development in technology pressmoreand moregradable adjectives into their serviceby specifying precisely the underlying scales and thus turning theadjectives into numerical ones; the antonymic pair hard : softcan be quoted as an example. This process is paralleled by


31/221

NUMERICAL AND NON-NUMERICAL ADJECTIVES

another one. The more people tend to perceive reality in quantitative terms the more they feel inclined to invent numericalscales for those physical properties which are not normally measurable on linear scales, and even for some non-physical, abstractproperties, which are only susceptible to subjective measurement.

Let us consider the antonymic set iarge / big : small . A question such as How long is your car? can be answered by saying It is fourteen feet long ; but the question How big is your car?caimot be answered by a sentence of the shape It is n units big ,and the reason is not that formula [28] would give an unacceptable sentence here, only that the underlying concept is size , andthis refers to three dimensions. The question How big is yourcar? might be answered: It s fourteen feet long, five feet wide,and four feet six inches high ; but then we would be dealing withth ree different assessments o f th ree different l inear dimensionsexpressed by three different adjectives. If the query refers tosomething small, for example a dog, then the answer to the question How big is your dog? might be Oh it s this big - accompanied by a gesture. There is no universally applicable linear scaleof size. It is interesting and significant, however, that in certain

cases people feel the need for a linear scale on which to representtwo-dimensioned or three-dimensional size, and they createspecial scales, such as the linear scales for the sizes of sheets ofpaper (two-dimensional objects) or for the sizes of shoes andclothes (three-dimensional objects). Such scales are not calibratedin any of the standard physical units of measurement, but inc o nv e nt io n a l u n it s created a d hoc. T o re tu rn to o ur tes t formulafor numerical adjectives, [37], we say, for example:

[4 ] Jeme s bras are two sizes larger than Mary s

with size used as a quasi-unit of measurement. Some of thesead hoc scales may seem non-numerical - such as the four-term.scale for sizes of clothes: small , medium , large , extra large .Conceptually, however, they are closely related to munericals c a l e s .

Let us turn now to non-physical, abstract properties; forexample, that expressed by the antonymic pair good : bad (inthe sense of proficiency or skilfulness, and not in the sense ofmoral virtue). Here we are right out of the sphere of physicalparameters of things; yet the degree of goodness or perfectionis often measured- and sometimes with a great degreeof delicacy- on specially constructed numerical scales, such as the scalesused in judging the performance of competitors in diving, figureskating, gymnastics, etc.; or the scales used in assessing performance in tests and examinations. Antonymic pairs of the


32/221

l GRADABLE AND NON-GRADABLE ADJECTIVES

large : smaU kind and those of the good : bad kind aresimilar, in that in both cases the units of measurement are termssuch as point , grade , mark , size , etc. - that is, units whichare non-specific for the dimension-scales they grade. This reflectsthe fac t tha t th e scales a re more artificial than t he n at ur al scalesunderlying primary numerical adjectives. Adjectives expressingthese relatively more artificial scales will be called here secondarynumerical adjectives.

Numerical adjectives of all subclasses) vary in their syntacticand semantic behaviour in sentences constructed according toformulae [27] and [28] - which will be repeated here for the sakeo f conven ience .

.27.28

H o w A is N PN P is n uni ts A .

In the first seven pairs of primary numerical adjectives listedin [39] the first member of each pair is unmarked, both in type[27] questions and in type [28] statements. In the pair late : early both terms are marked, in questions as well as instatements. The adjective long referring to duration is unmarked

in type [27] questions, but is for many speakers unacceptable intype [28] statements. Thus in the question How long was yourholiday? the adjective is unmarked and value-neutral; but forsome speakers it isnot substitutable forAin formula [28]: It wasthree weeks long. In the remaining pairs from the list [39] bothmembers seem equally marked in tj^e [ ] questions and bothare equally unacceptable in type [28] statements.

In the pairs of adjectives of temperature listed in [40] all termsare marked in type [27] questions. In type [28] statements only hot seems admissible, and only when it refers to very hightemperatures; it is then marked, and this constitutes an interesting departure from the principle of value-neutrality of theadjective in type [28] sentences.

The adjectives from the additional list [41] are all marked intype [27] questions some of them would hardly be used in suchquestions). Their use in type [28] statements seems governed byregister rules: a sentence such as This noise is a hundred decibels

loud. may be acceptable to an acoustics specialist.

N o t e s

I. Locutions such as The poor are always with us are considered hereto be transforms of sentences with noun phrases here poor people )as subjects. The same is true of the Polish equivalents of such locu-


33/221

NOTES 19

dons; eg Biedni sa zawsze w^r6d nas. In locutions such as Trueis no t th e word for it th e adjective (here true ) is used as a citationf o r m : * T h e w o r d t r u e .

2. According to what is now th e standard view in generative grammars,adjectives in predicative position are interpreted as predicates, andNP s with attributive adjectives (as noun modifiers) are derived fromthem transformationally. Followers of Montague tend to adopt th econverse view and interpret adjectives in predicate position asdisplaced noun modifiers {cf eg Parsons 1972). Predicative-only andattributive-only adjectives are an embarrassment for either of theseschools of thought. There is, of course, a third possibility: attributiveand predicative constructions may be examined separately, with aview to establishing semantic differences between th e two. That iswhat was attempted by Bolinger, as early as 1967 (c f Bolinger1967a).

3. Since the noun is a very versatile and multi-functional part ofspeech, it is possible to find similar synonymic pairs for nouns andverbs; eg in Polish:NV Jan studiuje (*Jan studies ).NvN Jan jest studentem ( Jan is a student ).

4. In actual fact, central an d predicative-only adjectives are characteristically gradable, and many non-gradable adjectives from these

subclasses, such as, for example, male , female , alive , have gradable equivalents: masculine , feminine , lively . Many non-gradable adjectives can be used in some comparative constructionsfiguratively; cf more dead than alive (see also note 7 below).

5. Probably the most elegant characterization of the class of Englishadjectives which can form the comparative and superlative degreeinflectionally is that proposed by Cygan 1975). Cygan first quotesKuryiowicz (1964:15): The comparative in er is regular with adjectives stressed on the final syllable (e.g. severer), hence also withmonosyllabic forms {stronger), but the periphrastic comparative inall other cases . Th i s f o r m ul a ti o n s u bs u m es u nd er o ne s t ress-basedrule two classes of adjectives traditionally listed separately.Certain deviations from this rule (likelier, etc.), Kurytowiczsuggests, do not obliterate the clarity of the pattern. Cygan arguesthat in disyllabic gradable adjectives with stress on the first syllable,such as likely, narrow, tender, simple, and so on, all th e unstressedvowel endings, as also the syllabic /, are representatives of theresonant (sonorant) class. He goes on to say: The primary functionof a resonant - any resonant - is consonantal (non-syllabic); a

resonant assumes a vocalic (syllabic) function only secondarily, innon-vocalic entourage. Thus, he argues, in the comparative-degreeform the final resonants resume their consonantal function, and weget such alternations as: ow[u]~[w], er[9] [T], etc. Inconclus ion h e formulates th e ru le t h a t i t is th e stress o n th e lastvowel of the underlying phonological representation of an Englishadjective that is decisive for the possibility of its being comparedinflectionally .


34/221

2 0 GRADABLE A N D NON-GRADABLE ADJECTIVES

6. Bolinger (i967b:4) points to one more characteristic of adjectivesthat can take comparison: They admit phonological lengthening,itself a way of expressing a hi^ degree of something: It s deepl

/di:p/; He's studiousl /stu:dy9 ; It's a long/lo:g/ way; but not It'sproportionate */pT^po:T^dn^t/, It's biological */bay9la:jtkl/.7. Formulaic figurative locutions such as John is more dead than alive'

do not invalidate the statement of th e non-gradability of the adjective dead , since the adjective cannot be used freely in typicalcomparative sentences; consider, for example, such sentences as:

* J o h n is m or e d e a d t h a n P e t e r.*John is more dead now than he wa s an hour ago.

8. Cf Bolinger (i967b:4): All indications are that comparability is a

semantic feature coextensive with having different degrees or susceptible of being laid out on a scale , ''

9. Kamp (1975:147/) argues convincingly why such sentences as 'Thisis m ore tab le th an that sound awkward.

10. Such pairs of adjectives as 'beautiful' : 'ugly', 'cruel' : 'kind' do notdefine binary scales. For a discussion of this see note 14 below..

11. Fo r a discussion of incompatibility see Leech (1974:100), Palmer(1976:73), Lyons (1977:242, 288), and Lyons (1981:95).

12. In Leech (1974:85-6), entai lment is listed as one of eight types ofbasic statement. He begins by giving what he calls 'partial definitions'; for entailment the partial definition is as follows: A entailsY: If X is true, Y is true; also if Y is false, X is false. He goes on tosay, we must add to the definitions of basic statement the provisothat the truth conditions hold 'by virtue of conceptual meaninga l o n e

Kempson 1977:39) defines entailment as follows: The relationof entaihnent is said to hold between tw o sentences. Si and S2, ifwhen Si is true S2 must be true: in other words S2 is a necessarycondition for t he t ru th of Si.

Lyons 1977:165) in his definition of entailment uses the propo-sition-forming operator of logical possibility 'poss'. He writes, Entailment can be defined in terms of poss and material implicationa s fo l l ows

(P => ^) = -poss(p -^ ) .That is to say, if p entails q, then it is not logicallypossible for bothp to be true and not-^ to be true and conversely.

13. The significance of the qualifier 'even'wiU be discussed in 6.2.1 and6.7.

14. We can now see why such pairs of adjectives as 'beautiful' : 'ugly', cniel : kind do not define binary scales: they are neither reciprocal nor even semi-reciprocal. Thus, for example, Mary is uglierth an J an e does not entail Jane is more beautiful than M aiy , nordoes Sheila is more beautiful than Carol entail Carol is uglier thanSheila'. The adjectives beautiful and 'ugly' ar e each at least weaklyabsolute; for some speakers they are fully absolute {cf section


35/221

N O T E S

1.4). Mary is uglier than Jane entails Jane is better looking thanM ^ , but the transition from ugliness to beauty involves transition to an entirely separate scale. Similarly, Graham is kinder than

Clive does no t entail Clive is crueller than Graham ; and probablyfor most speakers Dwight is crueller than Rodney does not entail Rodney is kinder than Dwight .

15. Open scales are open at both ends. This statement may strike somereaders as paradoxical; let us therefore analyse it now. To beginwith, to say that the scale is open does not mean to say that it isunlimited. Let us discuss the top end first taking the s


36/221

G R A D A B L E N D N O N - G R A D A B L E A D J E C T I V E S

the expression as A as depends on the adjective used: for example o ld is value-neutral bu t taU is not . l l i i s will be discussed in8 .2 .2 .1 .

21. Prator 1963) argues convincingly that the scale of temperature looksl i ke th is ;lO t

t

coo l warm

In progressing up or down the scale we skip one term; for example the examples are mine, not Prator s):

It was hot yesterday, but today it is cooler and the night may be

co ld .The night was cold, bu t now that the sun has risen it s gettingwarmer and we ll probably have a hot day.

The foUowing locutions, however, are not acceptable:

*It s cold, but it s getting cooler.*It s hot, but it s getting warmer. It s cold, but it s getting hotter.*It s hot, but it s getting colder.

Prator goes on to discuss the adjectives of temperature in Chinese,where there is also a four-term scale but the system functionsdifferently:

UySngkwai j nwanhwo^Vi 6ng


37/221

hapter 2

omparatives and positives

2.1 orm relativity and scale relativity

In Chapter 1 we defined relativity by means of formulae [i6]; forthe sake of convenience we shall repeat them here as formulae[I]:

[i] NPi is ^ er than NPj NPi is A.NPi Aer than NPj ^ NPi not A.This seems an adequate definition, since it applies to all relativeadjectives, including both the unmarked and the markedmembers of antonymic pairs. Let us now refine the concept ofrelativity by drawing a distinction between the relativity of anadjective as a lexeme and the relativity of forms of an adjective.

The minimum requirement for an adjective to be termed

relative is that it should fit formulae [i]. These show what isimplied when a relative adjective A is used in the comparative-degree form; and what is implied is, in fact, value-neutrality ofthe adjective. We know, however, that relative adjectives, thusdefined, are value-neutral also in the superiative-degree formsand - what is more - that some adjectives, notably the unmarkedmembers of antonymic pairs, can be value-neutral also in thepositive-degree form. Let us redefine relativity and say that arelative adjective as a lexeme is defined by its value-neutral use

in the comparative degreeform in formulae [ij; some adjectiveshowever, can be relative also in other forms, notably in thepositive-degree form, and this occurs whenever they are used inconstructions in which they are value-neutral. Thus we shall say,for example, that marked members of antonymic pairs are relative in the comparative-degree form and eo ipso relative as


38/221

2 4 COMPARATIVES AND POSITIVES

lexemes) but absolute in the positive-degree form (eg young );while unmarked members of antonymic pairs can be relative alsoin the positive-degree form (eg three years old ). Some of themare relative in the positive-degree form only in questions of the How A is type and statements of the NP is n units A type;others are relative also in statements of the iVP - is as A as NP/type - and so on.

Relativity of comparative-degree and positive-degree forms ofadjectives will be referred to as form relativity. The term isn e e e in v iew o f t h e ex i s t ence o f n o t h e r k i n d o f seman t i crelativity, which we shall now discuss.

Let us consider the following sentence:

[2] John is tall.

The exponent of the predicate in this sentence is an unmodifiedadjective in the positive-degree form, the unmarked member ofan antonymic pair. Out of context it will be interpreted as signifying a high value on the scale of height for human males.Suppose, however, that John is a child. Sentence [2] will thenexpress a true proposition even if John s height is only 4 feet,provided most other boys of his age are shorter, jc is tall is arelative statement, and the relativity may be due to variousfactors: x may be tall for his or her age, or tall by the standardsof the community he or she lives in (but not necessarily by thestandards of other communities). What is more: a tall girl is notnecessarily a tall person and certainly differs m height from, say, a taU tree . In each of these phrases the form tall signals a highvalue on the scale of height, but in each case the scale is different.The interpretation of the adjective tall (in particular, the numeri

cal value on the dimension-scale which it signals) depends on thereference set of the argument. What counts as tall on the scaleof height of infant-school boys will count as short on the scaleof height of adult European males, and may fall somewhere inbetween the values for tall and short on the scale of height ofadult pygmies. Comparatives in iVP - is Aer than NP/ sentencessigned vdues for the referent of) NPi on the dimension-scale itorelation to the secundum comparationis, which is the referent of)NPj. Positives in NP is A sentences signal a high, or low, value

for (the referent of) NP on the dimension-scale, and thesecundum comparationis is the reference set, which determinesthe scope of the scale. This may be made explicit, as in:

[3] John is tall for a pygmy

or may be implicit in the context or in the total speech situation.


39/221

PROBLEMS OF DERIVATION OF COMPARATIVES 25

In any case the meaning of the adjective in sentences of the type: NP is yl is affected by scale relativity.

This kind of relativity characterizes the positive-degree formof all those adjectives which display form relativity in thecomparative-degree form. Thus, for example, it applies both tothe unmarked and the marked members of open-scale antonymicpairs: a young pope is clearly young for a pope and quitecertainly not a youngster. Also, scale relativity is not limited tonumerical adjectives only: clean hands may be very clean byeveryday standards and yet fail to qualify as clean for purposesof surgery.

We are now in a position to examine critically the traditionalview of the function of the adjective, according to which theadjective ascribes a property to the referent of the noun withwhich it is in construction (as an attribute or as the predicate).It is clear that this formulation of the function of the adjectiveapplies only to those gradable adjectives which are semanticallyabsolute at least in the positive-degree form - and to non-gradableadjectives. Thus an adjective such as red (absolute in the positive-degree form) can be said to ascribe the property of rednessto t he r ef er en t o f th e n o u n wi th which i t is in cons t ruc t ion: re dpansy is a red flower and a red flower is a red object - in anyreference set. On the other hand, an adjective such as iargecannot be said to ascribe the property of considerable size tothe referent of the noun i t is in construction with , s in ce i ts interpretation is affected either by form relativity or by scale relativity.In particular, a large pansy is not a large flower , and definitelynot a large object .

2.2 Problems of derivation of compara tives

If both positives and comparatives can be relative, in one senseor another, the question arises: Which comes first, the positiveor the comparative? One solution is to derive comparatives frompositives. This is justifiable when the adjective is semanticallyabsolute. It is argued that if z is wetter than y, then at least z iswet and the form wetter signifies a higher degree (or greaterintensity) of the property referred to by the form wet . Relativeadjectives, however, are different in this respect. A form such as taller does not signify a higher degree of being tall .^ The truthv a l u e o f a s e n t e n c e su ch as

[4] John is older than Peter

does not depend on John being old - or on Peter being old (c/


40/221

6 COMPARATIVES AND POSmVES

6.2.1). In fact, both of them may be old, both may be young, orone of them may be old and .the other one young. Furthermore,in discussions of this problem it is often overlooked that one orboth may be middle-aged: neither old nor young.

In spite of all this, virtually all the existing derivations ofcomparatives proposed within the framework of transformationalgenerative grammar, as well as some logico-semanticderivations,use strings with a relative adjective in the positive degree asinputs to transformations leading to a sentence with that adjectivein the comparative degree. These derivations might be saved ifthe unmarked member of the antonymic pair appeared with an

index signalling its form-relative character, for example as oldr ,in contradistinction to old without an index: the dictionary form,meaning of considerable age . Indexing of this kind mightjustify deriving [4] from something like:

[5] John is (more than Peter is oldr) oldr.^The marked antonym, however, is only form-relative in thecomparative-degreeform. Its positive-degree form is semanticallyabsolute, and we cannot derive a sentence such as

[6] Peter is younger than John r o

[7] Peter is (more than John is young) youngsince John may not be young.^ A possible solution is to introducean abstract dimension-referring morpheme (representing age inour example; perhaps something like old/) and two relation-naming morphemes less and more - and wait with lexicalinsertion until later in the derivational process, when less and age(or oldr ) are replaced with younger , and more and age (or oldr ) with older .

Indexing the unmarked memberof the antonymic pairs is alsoneeded if we believe that there is a negative element underlyingthe secundum comparationis. Deriving John is older than Peterfrom something like:

[8] John is old to a degree to which Peter is nqt old

clearly requires indexing old as oldr . The whole argument,however, breaks down for two reasons. Firstly, [8] is uninfor-mative: what is st il l needed is a statement of the relation betweenPeter and John in respect of age: more or less . Negation isincidental: obviously if John s age is different from Peter s (inwhichever direction we proceed on the scale of age), it is not the


41/221

PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION OF TH E POSITIVE-DEGREE FORM 2 7

same. Secondly, we cannot derive Peter is younger than Johnf r o m :

[9] Peter is young to a degree to which John is not youngsince young is the marked antonym, and [9] entails - unmoti-vatedly - that Peter is young (and perhaps that John is not).

The view that there is a negative element in t he deep structureof comparative constructions is, according to some scholars,supported by the fact that comparatives go together with non-assertive rather than with assertive forms (in the sense of assertive and non-assertive introduced by Quirk et al. (1972:54)):for example with any rather than with some - cf [10] below.This argument, however, fails on two counts. Firstly, non-assertive forms are not characteristic of negative sentences only:they alsooccur in questions. Although it is true that the presenceofnegation triggers the use of non-assertive forms, it is not true thatthe use of a non-assertive form signals the presence of negationin sentence structure - surface or deep. Secondly, non-assertiveforms are not just contextually conditioned variants of assertiyeones: they have meanings of their own - both in comparative and

in negative sentences. In a sentence like:[10] John is taller than any of his friends

the form any is not a contextual variant of some .The meaningof [10] can be represented thus:

[11] (Vx) [x is a friend of John s ^ John is taller than x].

The meaning of the sentence:

[12] John is taller than some of his friends

is different; it could be represented as follows:

[13] 3a:) [x is a friend of John s a John is taller than ac

Some and any are independent also in negative sentences: I don t know some of John s friends is different in meaning from I don t know any of John s friends .

2.3 Problems o f i nt er pr et at io n o f the positive-degreefo rm

Interpretation of the meaning of the positive-degree form issimple in the case of absolute adjectives: we can use thetraditional formula and say that the adjective ascribes a propertyto the noun it is in construction with. We have seen however that


42/221

28 COMPARATIVES AND POSITIVES

this interpretation does not .apply in the case of relative adjectives. A number of linguists have suggested that the form of thepositive degree of relative adjectives signifies a greater thanaverage, or greater than norm (or smaller than average/norm)value on the dimension-scale relevant to the adjectivein question.Thus a sentence such as [2]

[2] Johnistallis interpreted as meaning John is taller than an averageman or John s hei^t is greater than the average height for humanmales . Similarly, a sentence such as;

[14] Peter is shortis taken to mean Peter is shorter than an average man or Peter sheight is less than the average height for human males . As wecan see, the inteipretation of the meaning of the positive degreeof the adjective is done here in terms of the comparative-degreeform. This interpretat ion can be found in many sources. Leibnizderived positives from comparatives as early as 300 years ago (c/Wierzbicka 1972:71). Among the more recent accounts are

Bartsch and Vennemann (1972), Gnutzman (1974), Ehrich(1975), and TopoliAska (1975). Lyons talks of some generallyaccepted norm (1977:274), but he sees the norm as variableacross different languages (or cultiu-es) and across differentgroups within the same society : what we have called scale-relative (c/2.1).

The first comment on the average/norm-based interpretationofpositives that springs to mind is that it applies only to numericaladjectives. Let us consider some non-numerical ones, such as pretty , experienced , good (in the sense decent, moral, trustworthy ). Is the phrase a pretty girl to be understood asmeaning a girl of more than average good looks and the phrase a plain girl as meaning a girl of less than average good looks ?It would be hard to establish the average mathematically, sincethere is no numerical scale of good looks . An alternativesolution is to interpret pretty as meaning exceeding the norm ofgood looks for the population as a whole . But establishing the norm is no easier a task than calculating the average where nonumer ical values are available. Moreover, what do we do in acommunity in which the majority of girls are pretty?

Bartsch and Vennemann (1972) point out that the positivedegree does not signal just any difference from the average, buta considerable difference. Yet an experienced driver is notnecessarily one who considerably exceeds the norm; and an inter-


43/221

PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION OF THE POSITIVE-DEGREE FORM 2 9

pretation of the phrase a good man as meaning one who considerably exceeds the moral decency norm for the communitywould be evidence of a pretty sour view of human nature.

Thus we can see that interpreting the positive-degree form ofnon-numerical adjectives in terms of departure from an averageor norm runs into problems, both because when we deal with non-numerical scales, average is an elusive concept, and because considerable departure from the norm does not seem to be anecessary condition for the positive-degree form to be correctlyused by the speaker and interpreted by the listener.

However, Unguists dealing with the problem of the meaning ofthe positive degree of relative adjectives usually confine theirattention to numerical adjectives. This is a convenient course totake, since numerical adjectives are more amenable to interpretation in terms of the average or norm. This interpretation hasbeen criticized most incisively by Lakoff (1972) and Bogusfawski(1975). Bogustawski argues that:

(a) For certain reference sets calculating the average may beimpossible.

(b) The positive degree does not signal just any difference fromthe average, but a considerable difference from the average:thus the positive degree reappears in the definition.

(c) To use the positive-degree form of the adjective correctly thespeaker does not have to know the value of the average.

(d) In any case, the concept of average is irrelevant, since in ourdecision to use the positive degree we seem to be guided byo t r cons ide ra t i ons .

In connection with the latter point it might be remarked that

Wierzbicka (1972) suggests that the concept of median is morerelevant than that of average , tha t is arthmetical mean .Boguslawski s argumentation can be developed by showing that

the concept of average value on the scale for a dimension isat best fu^, often empty and, consequently, useless , and atw o r s t nonsens ica l . L e t us r econs ide r th e sen tence J o h n is taU .To begin with, the adjective tall is scale-relative, and interpreting tall as meaning of more than average height makesit doubly relative, since average height is not an absolute

concept: it can only be established for a given reference set. As t a t e m e n t such as J o h n is ta l l is shor t for:

[15] John is tall for an N

where N is the name of the reference set. I t follows from this thatany statement of the type x is A is incomplete since the listener


44/221

3 0 COMPARATIVES A N D POSITIVES

has to supply the reference set. If John is a pygmy, then Johnistall may be interpreted as tallfor a pygmy , tallfora humanmale , or perhaps, given the right context, tall for a member ofthe set of persons in this room . Tall , old , strong , etc. arerelative concepts; but so are the averages proposed as allegedlymore primitive terms in the semantic representation of thoseconcepts

Let us now consider some other relative adjectives. Thes t t m n t

[16] That mountain is high

will be interpreted differently in Snowdonia (inNorth Wales) andin the Himalayas. Here, however, the concept reference setturns out to be very difficult to define. There is no such thing as the average height of a mountain in Snowdonia ; to computeit we would have to define first the fuzzy notion mountain ,which in itself implies a departure from an average elevation(whatever that may mean). Similarly, the meaning of the adjective long in the sentence

[17] My journey will be longis not based on an average. What is the average length of ajourney? Average for the speaker, or for the listener, or for anaverage(?) human being? Average in terms of the means of transportation (presumably known to the listener), or average ingeneral ? To take another example: does the sentence

[18] The Pacific Ocean is widereally imply the existence of an average value for the width ofoceans? Or is the Pacific Ocean wide in the sense of its widthbeing more than the average width of a stretch of water- whatever that may be?

The concept of average seems to lose all sense when we reachthe absolute limits of a scale Let u s co ns id er s uc h s en te nc es as:

[19] The universe is big.[20] The quark is small.

Here the adjectives big and smaU refer to the absolute top andthe absolute bottom of the scale for size of things in general. Itwould require a considerable degree of dogmatism to maintainthat the semantic interpretation of [19] is parallel to that of [2],le is something like: The size of the universe is greater than theaverage size of things in general. The concept of an averagesize (or norm) of a thing in general strikes one as absurd; and


45/221

L

PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION OF TH E POSmVE DEGREE FORM 31

would the contention that in uttering sentences like [19] and[2 ] speakers have that concept in their minds or that listenersuse it to interpret such sentences semantically.

The concepts of average and norm are intended to beobjective. However, human beings in their use of language areguided both by objective factors and by variable factors of a socialand psychological nature. The use of numerical adjectives is noexception here. Thus, for example, assessment of the size ofautomobiles varies from society to society. A sentence like:

[21] This is a small car

will be accepted as perfectly normal in the United States if utteredabout a Renauh 18 - a car which in Europe would never bedescribed as small . Age of speakers is another factor influencing the use of numerical adjectives. A small child may say:

[22] Our teacher is quite old; she must be thirty

while the child s mother might equally well say of the sameper son :

[23] Our son s teacher is quite young; she can t be more thanthirty.

In view of all these critical remarks one might ask why so manyresearchers have chosen to interpret semantically the positivedegree of numerical adjectives in terms of the concept of average;Bartsch and Vennemann built their formalized system of semanticinterpretation of adjectives squarely on that concept. The answerseems to lie in the widespread tendency to describe the semanticsof natural language strictly in terms of formal logic and to make

the descriptions as neatly mathematical as possible. Averageis a convenient mathematical concept; hence the temptation touse it, even in th e face of the evidence of its inadequacy to thetask which it is required to perform.

An alternative way of interpreting the meaning of the positivedegree of numerical adjectives is to recognize the fact that everyscale has an interval somewhere in the middle which representsthose values tha t are considered neu tral for tha t scale. O n emember of an antonymic pair of adjectives {eg tall ) can then becharacterized as meaning more than of neutral value (here: more than of neutral height ) and its antonym can be describedas meaning less than of neutral value (here: less than ofneutral height ). This sounds very much Uke the traditionalapproach in terms of relations to an average or norm. The crucialdifference, however, hes in the fact that no underlying concepts


46/221

22 COMP R TIVES ND POSITIVES

of a mathematical character, such as mean or median , areposited and the fuzzy nature of the meanings of relative adjectives is accounted for by building the ill-definedconcept neutralinto the description.

Yet this approach does not seem entirely satisfactory, either,because it is open to at least part of the criticism of the conceptof average . It is not possible to state an average value forthe length of a journey or the width of oceans; but the sameapplies to the concept neutral value - even if we make it veryfuzzy indeed.

The first thing that strikes a student of numerical adjectives isthe fact that the concepts tall , wide , old , low , short ,etc. are ill-defined: they are fuzzy concepts. The assessment ofthe value on the dimension-scale ascribed to a given adjectivevaries from reference set to reference set, from speaker tospeaker from one moment to the next and what is more ishardly ever done in the either/or terms characteristic of mathematics and classical formal logic; on the contrary, it is usuallyapproximate and unstable. Any attempt to describe the semanticsor numerical adjectives which uses only well-defined concepts is

therefore doomed to go wrong. The same can be said a fortioriabout any attempt at a semantic description of a natural languageas a whole - since fuzzy concepts are by no means confined tothe set of numerical adjectives.

For Lakoff (1972:1) . . . natural language concepts have vagueboundaries and fuz:^ edges and . . . consequently naturallanguage sentences will very ofteh be neither true nor false nornonsensical, but rather true to a certain extent and false to acertain extent, true in certain respects and false in other

respects . He suggests using fuzzy set theory as developed byZadeh. John is tall will then be represented as | t a l l (j) | Johnis a member of the fuzzy set | t a l l | John is taU to a degree ,with the degree of John s membersWp in the set ranging overvalues in the real interval [0,1].

This seems an attractive proposal; bu t on closer inspection itreveals serious shortcomings. Height would presumably have tobe discussed in terms of two separate fuzzy sets | t a l l | andIshort I, which wouldobliterate the underlying unitybetweenthetwo concepts. Lack of the underlying concept height wouldmake the interpretation of sentences with comparativesdependent on an arbitrary choice of degree-of-membership valuesfor the set | t a l l | or for the set | short | as a basis forcomparison.

Vagueness, undoubtedly, has to be taken into account in any


47/221

SET-THEOREnCAL INTERPRETATION OF RELATIVE ADJECTIVES 3 3

description of relative adjectives; but we should aim at a maximally integrative account - one which would bring together allthe different uses of those adjectives, both in the positive-, the

comparative- and the superlative-degree form.

2.4 Set-theoretica l in terpre ta tion of relative adjectives

Let us now consider a proposal for an integrative approach to thesemantic interpretation of the positive- and comparative-degreeforms of relative adjectives - both numerical and non-numerical.It seems that the meaning of relative adjectives can be expressedmost adequately in terms of operations on sets. Let us begin withnumerical adjectives. Propositions underlying sentences withnumerical adjectives such as

[24] Johnny is four feet tall

will be regarded as instances of many-one mapping from the setof which the referent of the argument is a member to the set ofreal numbers. The mapping from one set to the other is thus a

function. This function is characterized by two importantproperties.Firstly, in the case of all numerical adjectives except the

bounded-scale ones ( full : empty , etc.) the numbers are alwaysnumbers of something: namely numbers of units of measure, suchas feet years kilograms, etc. appropriate to a dimension, suchas height, age, weight, etc. Tlie numbers are thus denominaten u m b e r s .

Secondly, in most cases the function makes use only of a subset

o f the set o f real n um be rs . T his s ub se t is t reated as the scale forthe given dimension. The choice of this subset, ie the range of thefunction, depends on the nature of the set which is the domainof the function. This means, for example, that the scale of heightfo r humans is different from the scale of height for trees, an d thescale of age for trees is different from that for mountain ranges -a n d s o o n

h e funct ion t hus def ined will b e r e fe r red to as th e m e a s u r efunction^* and symbolized Mp, with D standing for dimension .The dimension may be specified as height , age weight ,etc., in which case the measure function will be symbolized MhMa Mw, etc. respectively. The scale for the given dimension mayalso be specified, in which cases we shall be talking of the measure function of height of trees Mh^^, or the measure function of age of humans and so on. Thus, for example.


48/221

3 4 COMPARAHVES AND POSITIVES

in the proposition underlying [2] the scale is not specified, whilein [3] it is.

Let us now illustrate this argiunent with a few examples. The

proposition underlying sentence [24] can be represented asf o l l o w s ;

[25] Johnny is four feet tedl.Mh (Johnny) = 4 feet.

To paraphrase: The value of the measure function of height forJohnny is four feet. The proposition underlying sentence [4], John is older than Peter , can be represented as follows:

[26] John is older than Peter.Ma (John) > Ma (Peter).To paraphrase; The value of the measure function of age forJohn is m or e t ha n the value of this function for Peter. Similarly,sentence [6] Peter is younger than John , will be interpreted asfo l lows:

[27] Peter is younger than John.Ma (Peter) < Ma (John).

All those formulae reflect the form relativity of the adjectives theyr r to .

As can be seen from this argumentation, it is suggested that weshould adopt the relations equals , is more , and is less asprimitive semantic concepts. In this respect the interpretation ofthe semantics of gradable adjectives proposed here does notdepart from the mainstream of tradition.

Let us now pass to sentences in which the exponent of the pred

icate is an unmodified relative adjective in the positive-degreeform: that is to sentences of the iVP is type. I would like tosuggest that the meaning of the adjective in sentences of this kindcan be expressed as a value of the measure function,

Adjectives and Comparison in English 1985

Documents

Transcript of Adjectives and Comparison in English 1985