Seminar 4

ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS

1. Adjective as a part of speech: meaning, form and function.

In linguistics, an adjective is word whose main syntactic role is to modify a noun or noun phrase. Its
semantic role is to change information given by the noun or a pronoun.
An adjective is often defined as a word which describes or gives more information about a noun or
pronoun. Adjectives describe nouns in terms of such qualities as size, color, number, and kind. In the
sentence The lazy dog sat on the rug, the word lazy is an adjective which gives more information about the
noun dog. We can add more adjectives to describe the dog as well as in the sentence The lazy, old, brown
dog sat on the rug. We can also add adjectives to describe the rug as in the sentence The lazy, old, brown
dog sat on the beautiful, expensive, new rug. The adjectives do not change the basic meaning or structure of
the sentence, but they do give a lot more information about the dog and the rug.
Most adjectives do not change form whether the noun it describes is singular or plural. For example,
we say big tree and big trees, old house and old houses, good time and good times. There are, however,
some adjectives that do have different singular and plural forms. The common words this and that have the
plural forms these and those. These words are called demonstrative adjectives because demonstrate or point
out what is being referred to.
Forms. (positive, comparative and superlative)
The simplest form of the adjective is its positive form. When two objects or pesons are being
compared, the comparative form of the adjective is used. When three or more things are being compared, we
use the adjective’s superlative form.
A few adjectives, like good and bad form their comparatives with different words:
That is a good book. This is a better book. Which of the three is the best book?
He made a bad choice. She made a worse choice. They made the worst choice of all.
The comparative forms of most adjectives, however, are formed by adding the suffixes
–er and –est, or by placing the words more and most in front of the positive form.
Adjectives are divided into three groups: qualitative, relative and quantitative.
Qualitatives: denote various qualities of substances which admit of a quantitatives estimation: an awkward
situation – a very awkward situation, a difficult task– a very difficult task.
Relative: express such properties of a substance that are determines by direct relation of the
substance to some other substance. Wood – a wooden hut, mathematics – mathematical precision
Quantitative: little, few, much, many (naij – naïve, savant – savante, blond – blonde)
The category of comparison expresses the quantitative characteristic of the quantity of a nounal
referent, ie it gives a relative evaluation of the quantity or quality.
Strong – stronger, strongest
Free – freer, the freest
Good – better, the best

Syntactic functions of adjectives

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.
Their main function: an attribute and a predicative.
I don’t want a yellow balloon, let me have a green one.
The sky was gray and leaden.

2. Subclasses of adjectives: qualitative, relative and quantitative adjectives.

1
 All the adjectives are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative, relative and
quantitative.

Relative Adjectives
Relative adjectives denote the attribute of the object through relation to another object, ie, they name
the attribute that indicates the relation:
1. to the object or material: china =tableware made of porcelain
2. to the person (children's bed = bed for children)
3. to the animal (cockscomb= the comb of a rooster))
4. to the place (seashore= the shore of the sea)
5. to time (Morning exercise= exercise which we do in the morning; yesterday's newspaper= the newspaper,
which was issued yesterday)
6. to the action or propriety
7. by number (triple jump)
Other examples: 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
Qualitative adjectives are those adjectives which can describe quality of living beings or non-living
things. Qualitative Adjectives answer the question, what kind? Qualitative adjectives are gradable which
means they can form degrees.
We cannot count qualitative adjectives. Qualitative adjectives are mostly abstract and perceived
through our senses. Compared to quantitative adjectives there are many qualitative adjectives:
Examples of Qualitative Adjectives
Boring, Interesting, scary, funny, dark, fair, silky, long, neutral, red, green, black, purple, yellow,
damp, feathery, rough, foul, hairy, furry, clean, dirty, sweet, sugary, sour, groan, thud, roar, tall, short, thin,
fat, bulky, plump, round, glassy, sad, devastated, pathetic, amazing
The uses of Qualitative Adjectives in sentences are as follows:
 My sister is a beautiful girl.
 There are boring people in my classroom.
 The pickle is so sour.
 The tiger roars.
 Can you stop doing rough work now?
 This new novel is very interesting.
 The color of their dress is brown and white.
 You look hungry. Haven’t you eaten anything since morning?
 The injured dog on the road looked pitiful.
 Why are you carrying a dirty bag when you have a clean one at home?
 I am such a lucky man to have an amazing woman like her as my wife.
 The chair in my room is of brown color.
The Qualitative Adjectives used above in the sentences and questions evaluate or give opinions about
subjects or their actions instead of plainly describing what can be seen through our eyes. Qualitative
Adjectives are all those Adjectives which describe our opinions, types of taste, smell, sounds and textures of
different types of touch.
Qualitative Adjectives are gradable into three form. These forms denote degree of comparison. They
are Positive, Comparative and Superlative Form. Positive Form denote the quality, comparative form denote
the comparison of two things having similar qualities and Superlative form denote the highest degree of
quality.

Quantitative Adjectives
Quantitative adjectives are those Adjectives which describe the measurement i.e. count or amount of
any living beings or non-living things are called quantitative adjectives. However, the measurement is not in
exact numbers.

2
 Quantitative adjectives answer the questions, how much or how many?
To some extent we can count or weigh quantitative adjectives. Quantitative adjectives are mostly
concrete.
Examples of Quantitative Adjectives:
 Some, few, little, most, all, no, enough, any, whole, sufficient, none
 The uses of Quantitative Adjectives in sentences are as follows:
 I drank half of my mango drink.
 I ate some roasted chicken.
 He has many cherries in his large pocket.
 Linda ate whole burger.
 These ignorant people have no common sense.
 I can see enough juice in the jug for the breakfast.
 Little knowledge is dangerous.
 I did not give him any chocolates from my bag.
 I gave him sufficient money for the picnic and shopping.
 None of the students has done homework today.
 Most people these days are selfish in this world.
 Few actresses are down to the earth.
Unlike, Qualitative Adjectives Quantitative Adjectives do not judge subjects or their actions. They
simply state the information which our eyes can perceive or state the number or amount of living
beings/things.

3. Stative – a part of speech or a subclass?

Among the words signifying properties of a noun there is a lexemic set which claims to be
recognised as a separate part of speech as different from the adjectives (the words built up by the prefix a-
and denoting different states, mostly of temporary duration: afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze).
In traditional grammar these words were generally considered under the heading of predicative
adjectives.
Notional words signifying states and specifically used as predicatives were first identified as a
separate part of speech in the Russian language by L. V. Shcherba and V. V. Vinogradov. The two scholars
called the newly identified part of speech the category of state (and, correspondingly, words of the category
of state: тепло, зябко, одиноко, радостно, жаль, лень, etc.). Traditionally the Russian words of the
category of state were considered to belong to the class of adverbs, and they are still considered as such by
many Russian scholars.
On the analogy of the Russian category of state, the English qualifying a-words were given the part-
of-speech heading category of state (B. A. Ilyish) and the term used for words constituting this category was
later changed into stative words/statives.
The part-of-speech interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists working in the domain
of English. Usual arguments given pro separating them into a part of speech are as follows (B. S.
Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya: 1) the statives (ad-links) are opposed to adjectives on a purely semantic
basis (adjectives denote qualities, and statives-adlinks denote states); 2) statives-adlinks are characterised by
the specific prefix a-; 3) they do not possess the category of the degrees of comparison; 4) they are not used
in the pre-positional attributive function,
This view of the stative was not supported by any special analysis and formed on the grounds of
mere surface analogies and outer correlations. The later semantic and functional study of statives showed
that statives, though forming a unified set of words, do not constitute a separate lexemic class existing in
language on exactly the same footing as the noun, the verb, the adjective, the adverb. It should be looked
upon as a subclass within the general class of adjectives since statives are not directly opposed to the
notional parts of speech taken together, but are quite particularly opposed to the rest of adjectives.
Therefore the general subcategorisation of the class of adjectives is effected on the two levels:
1) on the upper level the class is divided into the subclass of stative adjectives and common adjectives;
2) on the lower level the common adjectives fall into qualitative and relative.

3
4. Degrees of comparison. The problem of analytical forms with more and most, less and least.

DEGREES OF COMPARISON
The first question which arises here is, how many degrees of comparison has the English adjective?
If we take, for example, the three forms of an English adjective: large, larger, (the) largest, shall we say that
they are, all three of them, degrees of comparison? In that case we ought to term them positive, comparative,
and superlative. Or shall we say that only the latter two are degrees of comparison (comparative and
superlative), whereas the first (large) does not express any idea of comparison and is therefore not a degree
found their advocates in grammatical theory.
Первый вопрос, который возникает здесь: сколько степеней сравнения имеет английское
прилагательное? Если мы возьмем, например, три формы английского прилагательного: large, larger,
(the) largest, скажем ли мы, что все они являются степенями сравнения? В этом случае мы должны
назвать их положительными, сравнительными и превосходными. Или мы должны сказать, что только
последние две являются степенями сравнения (сравнительной и превосходной), тогда как первая
(large) не выражает никакой идеи сравнения и поэтому не находит их защитников в грамматической
теории.
Both views have found their advocates in grammatical theory. Now, if we define a degree of
comparison as a form expressing comparison of one object or objects with another in respect of a certain
property, it would seem that the first of the three forms (large) should not be included, as it does not express
any comparison. Then we should have only two degrees of comparison larger, (the) largest, and a form
standing apart, coinciding with the stem from which the degrees of comparison, are formed, and which may
be described as the basic form.
Оба взгляда нашли своих сторонников в грамматической теории. Теперь, если мы определим
степень сравнения как форму, выражающую сравнение одного объекта или объектов с другим в
отношении определенного свойства, может показаться, что первая из трех форм (large) не должна
быть включена, поскольку она не выразить любое сравнение. Тогда у нас должно быть только две
степени сравнения larger, (the) largest и форма, стоящая отдельно, совпадающая с основанием, из
которого формируются степени сравнения, и которая может быть описана как основная форма.

However, not all adjectives are able to change the degree of comparison. As a rule, this ability is
absent in relative adjectives in their direct meaning, although occasionally these forms may occur in a
figurative meaning.
Однако далеко не все прилагательные способны передавать различную степень
интенсивности того или иного свойства. Как правило, эта способность отсутствует у относительных
прилагательных в их прямом значении, хотя в переносном значении изредка эти формы могут
встречаться.

Qualitative adjectives vary in degrees of comparison, with the exception of those qualities when
absolute quality is indicated (for example: blind, dead).
Качественные прилагательные изменяются по степеням сравнения, за исключением тех
качеств, когда обозначается абсолютное качество (например: blind, dead).

The morphological form of the degrees of comparison in its use is limited by the phonetic
composition of the adjective, first of all by its syllabic structure: only monosyllabic adjectives undoubtedly
change morphologically, taking the ending -er to a comparative degree in superlative -est: short, shorter, the
shortest.
Морфологическая форма степеней сравнения в своем употреблении ограничена фонетическим
составом прилагательного, прежде всего его слоговой структурой: бесспорно изменяются
морфологически только Односложные прилагательные, принимая в сравнительной степени
окончание -er, в превосходной -est: short, shorter, the shortest.

Two-syllable ones can vary morphologically or convey a degree of quality as part of a phrase:
lovelier, more lovely; the loveliest, the most lovely.

4
 Двусложные могут изменяться морфологически или передавать степень качества в составе
словосочетания: lovelier, more lovely; the loveliest, the most lovely.

There are still some restrictions, for example, for adjectives with an ending in two explosives: direct,
rapt; these adjectives usually do not form morphological forms of comparison, although strict may take the
form of stricter, the strictest.
Существуют еще некоторые ограничения, например для прилагательных с исходом на два
взрывных: direct, rapt; эти прилагательные обычно не образуют морфологических форм сравнения,
хотя strict может иметь формы stricter, the strictest.

Polysyllabic adjectives do not have morphological forms of degrees comparison; the degree of
quality is conveyed in them by combinations with more, the most. But we'll talk about this a bit later.
Многосложные прилагательные не имеют морфологических форм сравнения, степень
качества передается в них сочетаниями с more, the most.

However, in a very few adjectives the basic form differs from the stem in sound. This difference is of
some importance, though it is not reflected in the spelling.
Однако в очень немногих прилагательных основная форма отличается от основы в звуке. Это
различие имеет некоторое значение, хотя оно не отражается в правописании.

This applies to two adjectives in -ng, namely long and young; their stems are [long-] and [jang-] and
the degrees of comparison formed from these stems are, longer ['longa], longest ['langist] and younger
['japga], youngest ['jangist]. The basic forms, on the other hand, are long [lon] and young [jan], without the
final [-g] which is impossible after [-n] in modern literary English.

A somewhat similar phenomenon is found in adjectives ending in -r or -re, such as poor, pure, rare,
sure. Their stems are [puer-], [pjuar-,] [rear-], [Suar-] and the suffixes of the degrees of comparison are
added on to these stems, whereas the basic form loses its final [-r], unless it is followed without pause by a
word beginning with a vowel, as in the phrases poor idea, rare image, and the like.
Несколько похожее явление встречается у прилагательных, оканчивающихся на -r или -re,
таких как poor, pure, rare, sure. Их основы - [puer-], [pjuar-,] [Rear-], [Suar-], и к этим основам
добавляются суффиксы степеней сравнения, в то время как базовая форма теряет свой
окончательный [-r], если только за ним без паузы следует слово, начинающееся с гласной, как в
фразах плохая идея, редкое изображение и тому подобное.

Now it is well known that not every adjective has degrees of comparison. This may depend on two
factors. One of these is not grammatical, but semantic. Since degrees of comparison express a difference of
degree in the same property, only those adjectives admit of degrees of comparison which denote properties
capable of appearing in different degrees. Thus, it is obvious that, for example, the adjective middle has no
degrees of comparison. The same might be said about many other adjectives, such as blind, deaf, dead, etc.
However, this should not be taken too absolutely. Occasionally we may meet with such a sentence as this:
You cannot be deader than dead.
Теперь хорошо известно, что не у каждого прилагательного есть степени сравнения. Это
может зависеть от двух факторов. Один из них не грамматический, а семантический. Поскольку
степени сравнения выражают разницу степеней в одном и том же свойстве, только те
прилагательные допускают степени сравнения, которые обозначают свойства, которые могут
появляться в разных степенях. Таким образом, очевидно, что, например, прилагательное middle не
имеет степеней сравнения. То же самое можно сказать и о многих других прилагательных, таких как
blind, deaf, dead и т. Д. Однако это не следует воспринимать слишком точно. Иногда мы можем
встретиться с таким предложением: Вы не можете быть более мертвым, чем мертвый.

A more complex problem in the sphere of degrees of comparison is that of the formations more
difficult, (the) most difficult, or more beautiful, (the) most beautiful. The question is this: is more difficult an

5
analytical comparative degree of the adjective difficult? In that case the word more would be an auxiliary
word serving to make up that analytical form, and the phrase would belong to the sphere of morphology. Or
is more difficult a free phrase, not different in its essential character from the phrase very difficult or
somewhat difficult? In that case the adjective difficult would have no degrees of comparison at all (forming
degrees of comparison of this adjective by means of the inflections -er, -est is impossible), and the whole
phrase would be a syntactical formation. The traditional view held both by practical and theoretical
grammars until recently was that phrases of this type were analytical degrees of comparison. Recently,
however, the view has been put forward that they do not essentially differ from phrases of the type very
difficult, which, of course, nobody would think of treating as analytical forms.
Более сложной проблемой в области степеней сравнения является проблема образований more
difficult, (the) most difficult, or more beautiful, (the) most beautiful. Вопрос в следующем: является ли
more difficult аналитической сравнительной степенью прилагательного difficult? В этом случае слово
more будет вспомогательным словом, служащим для формирования этой аналитической формы, а
фраза будет относиться к сфере морфологии. Или фраза more difficult является свободной, не
отличающаяся по своей сущности от фразы very difficult или somewhat difficult? В этом случае
прилагательное difficult вообще не будет иметь степеней сравнения (формирование степеней
сравнения этого прилагательного с помощью окончаний -er, -est невозможно), и вся фраза будет
синтаксическим образованием. Традиционная точка зрения, которую придерживались
практические и теоретические грамматики до недавнего времени, заключалась в том, что фразы
этого типа были аналитическими степенями сравнения. Однако недавно было высказано мнение о
том, что они существенно не отличаются от фраз типа «very difficult», который, конечно, никто не
подумает рассматривать как аналитические формы.

Let us examine the arguments that have been or may be put forward in favour of one and the other
view.
Давайте рассмотрим аргументы, которые были или могут быть выдвинуты в пользу одной и
другой точки зрения.

The view that formations of the type more difficult are analytical degrees of comparison may be
supported by the following considerations:
Представление о том, что more difficult является аналитической степенью сравнения, может
быть подкреплено следующими соображениями:
(1) The actual meaning of formations like more difficult, (the) most difficult does not differ from that
of the degrees of comparison larger, (the) largest.
(1) Фактическое значение образований, подобных more difficult, (the) most difficult не
отличается от значения степеней сравнения larger, (the) largest.
(2) Qualitative adjectives, like difficult, express properties which may be present in different degrees,
and therefore they are bound to have degrees of comparison.
(2) Качественные прилагательные, такие как difficult, выражают свойства, которые могут
присутствовать в различной степени, и, следовательно, они должны иметь степени сравнения.

The argument against such formations being analytic al degrees of comparison would run roughly
like this. No formation should be interpreted as an analytical form unless there are compelling reasons for it,
and if there are considerations contradicting such a view. Now, in this particular case there are such
considerations:
Аргумент против того, что такие образования являются аналитическими со степенями
сравнения, будет примерно таким. Ни одна формация не должна интерпретироваться как
аналитическая форма, если нет веских причин для этого и если есть соображения, противоречащие
такой точке зрения. Теперь в данном конкретном случае есть такие точки зрения:
(1) The words more and most have the same meaning in these phrases as in other phrases in which
they may appear, e. g. more time, most people, etc.
(1) Слова more и most имеют то же значение в этих фразах, что и в других фразах, в которых
они могут появляться, например, more time, most people и т. д.

6
 (2) Alongside of the phrases more difficult, (the) most difficult there are also the phrases less difficult,
(the) least difficult, and there seems to be no sufficient reason for treating the two sets of phrases in different
ways, saying that more difficult is an analytical form, while less difficult is not. Besides, the very fact that
more and less, (the) most and (the) least can equally well combine with difficult, would seem to show that
they are free phrases and none of them is an analytical form. The fact that more difficult stands in the same
sense relation to difficult as larger to large is of course certain, but it should have no impact on the
interpretation of the phrases more difficult, (the) most difficult from a grammatical viewpoint.
(2) Наряду фразами more difficult, (the) most difficult есть также фразы less difficult, (the) least
difficult, и, по-видимому, нет достаточных оснований рассматривать два набора фраз по-разному,
говоря, что more difficult является аналитической формой, а less difficult – нет. Кроме того, сам факт
того, что more and less, (the) most and (the) least могут одинаково хорошо сочетаться с difficult, может
показаться, что они являются свободными фразами и ни одна из них не является аналитической
формой. Конечно, тот факт, что more difficult в этом смысле относится к difficult, так же как larger к
large неоспорим, но это не должно влиять на толкование фраз more difficult, (the) most difficult с
грамматической точки зрения.

Taking now a general view of both lines of argument, we can say that, roughly speaking,
considerations of meaning tend towards recognizing such formations as analytical forms, whereas strictly
grammatical considerations lead to the contrary view. It must be left to every student to decide what the way
out of this dilemma should be. It seems, on the whole, that the tendency towards making linguistics
something like an exact science which we are witnessing today should make us prefer the second view,
based on strictly grammatical criteria.
Взяв теперь общий взгляд на обе линии аргументации, мы можем сказать, что, грубо говоря,
семантические соображения стремятся признать такие образования аналитическими формами, тогда
как строго грамматические соображения приводят к противоположному мнению. Каждый студент
должен решить, каким должен быть выход из этой дилеммы. В целом кажется, что стремление
сделать лингвистику чем-то вроде точной науки, свидетелями которой мы являемся сегодня, должно
заставить нас предпочесть второй взгляд, основанный на строго грамматических критериях.

If that view is adopted the sphere of adjectives having degrees of comparison in Modern English will
be very limited: besides the limitations imposed by the meaning of the adjectives (as shown above), there
will be the limitation depending on the ability of an adjective to take the suffixes -er and -est.
Если эта точка зрения будет принята, сфера прилагательных, имеющих степени сравнения в
современном английском языке, будет очень ограниченной: помимо ограничений, налагаемых
значением прилагательных (как показано выше), будет ограничение, зависящее от способности
прилагательного взять суффиксы -er и -est.

A few adjectives do not, as is well known, form any degrees of comparison by means of inflections.
Their degrees of comparison are derived from a different root. These are good, better, best; bad, worse,
worst, and a few more. Should these formations be acknowledged as suppletive forms of the adjectives
good, bad, etc., or should they not? There seems no valid reason for denying them that status. The relation
good: better = large: larger is indeed of the same kind as the relation go: went = live: lived, where nobody
has expressed any doubt about went being a suppletive past tense form of the verb go. Thus, it is clear
enough that there is every reason to take better, worse, etc., as suppletive degrees of comparison to the
corresponding adjectives.
Несколько прилагательных, как хорошо известно, не образуют никаких степеней сравнения
посредством окончаний. Их степени сравнения получены из другого корня: good, better, best; bad,
worse, worst. Должны ли эти образования быть признаны дополнительными формами
прилагательных, good, bad и т. д., или нет? Кажется, нет веской причины для отказа им в этом
статусе. Отношения good: better = large: larger действительно того же типа, что и отношение go:
went = live: lived, где никто не выразил никаких сомнений в том, что went – это супплетивная форма
глагола go в прошедшем времени. Таким образом, достаточно ясно, что есть все основания считать
better, worse и т. д. дополнительными степенями сравнения с соответствующими прилагательными.

7
5. Adverb as a part of speech (meaning, form and function). Subclasses of adverbs.

The adverb is usually defined as a word expressing either property of an action, or property of
another property, or circumstances in which an action occurs. As this definition doesn’t show the clear
relation between the adverb and the adjective, we can define the adverb as a notional word expressing a non-
substantive property, that is, a property of a non-substantive referent (the adjective is a word expressing a
substantive property).
Properties may be of an "organic" and "inorganic" order. Of the organic properties, the adverb
denotes those characterising processes and other properties. Of the inorganic properties, the adverb denotes
various circumstantial characteristics of processes.
In accord with their categorial meaning, adverbs are characterised by a combinability with verbs,
adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The functions of adverbs in these combinations consist in
expressing different adverbial modifiers. This typical syntactic function can be illustrated by this sentence
E.g.: He had his eyes on the house there
Adverbs can also refer to whole situations; in this function they are considered under the heading of
situation-"determinants".
E.g.: The woman was crying hysterically. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand contact
combination with the verb-predicate)
Adverbs can also combine with nouns acquiring in such cases a very peculiar adverbial-attributive
function, essentially in post-position, but in some cases also in pre-position.
E.g.: The world today presents a picture radically different from what it was before the Second World War.
Adverbs have forms of comparison:
Fast – faster-the fastest, well-better-best
Adverbs can also cooperate as functional words
a) Interrogative and relative adverbs how, when, why
He dreaded the moment when someone would discover his treasure
b) Conjunction-adverbs – serve to connect clauses
You have no documents, otherwise you`d have handed them to the Colonel
There are adverbs of degree also. They are functional words, intensifiers or qualificators (very, quite,
highly etc).
E.g.: He received him very kindly.
They can have synthetic forms of comparison: early-earlier-earliest, irregular for well-better-the best,
more cheap-most cheap
In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple and derived.
Simple adverbs are rather few, and nearly all of them display functional semantics, mostly of pronominal
character: here, there, now, then, why, how, where, when.
Derived adverbs. The typical adverbial affixes in affixal derivation are: adverbial suffix -ly (slowly,
tiredly), and then a couple of others of limited distribution, such as -ways (sideways, crossways), -wise
(clockwise), -ward(s) (seawards, afterwards). + The characteristic adverbial prefix is a- (away, ahead).
Among the adverbs there are also peculiar composite formations and phrasal formations of
prepositional, conjunctional and other types: sometimes, nowhere, anyhow; at least upside down;
Some authors include in the word-building sets of adverbs also formations of the type from outside,
till now, before then, etc. However, such formations differ in principle from the ones mentioned above.
Furthermore, there are in English some other peculiar structural types of adverbs which are
derivationally connected with the words of non-adverbial lexemic classes by conversion. To these belong
both adverbs of full notional value and adverbs of half-notional value.
A peculiar set of converted notional adverbs is formed by adjective-stem conversives, such as fast,
late, hard, high, close. The peculiar feature of these is that all of them have a parallel form in -ly, the two
8
component units of each pair often differentiated in meaning or connotation. Cf.: to work hard — hardly to
work at all;
Among the adjective-stem converted adverbs there are a few words with the non-specific -ly
originally in-built in the adjective: daily, weekly, lively, timely, etc.
There are the adverbs that positionally interchange with prepositions and conjunctive words: before,
after, round, within, etc. Cf: somewhere round — round the corner;
Of quite a different nature are preposition-adverb-like elements which, placed in post-position to the
verb, form a semantical blend with it. The function of these post-positional elements is either to impart an
additional aspective meaning to the verb-base, or to introduce a lexical modification to its fundamental
semantics. E.g.: to bring about — to cause to happen; to reverse; to bring up — to call attention to;

Subclasses of adverbs

Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.

By qualitative such adverbs are meant as express immediate, inherently nongraded qualities of
actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs in -ly.

The adverbs interpreted as "quantitative" include words of degree. These are specific lexical units of
semi-functional nature expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. They may be
subdivided into several very clearly pronounced sets.

The first set is formed by adverbs of high degree. These adverbs are sometimes classed as
"intensifiers": very, quite, entirely, utterly, highly, greatly, perfectly, absolutely, strongly, considerably,
pretty, much. The second set includes adverbs of excessive degree (direct and reverse) also belonging to the
broader subclass of intensifiers: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically. The third set is made up
of adverbs of unexpected degree: surprisingly, astonishingly, amazingly. The fourth set is formed by adverbs
of moderate degree: fairly, comparatively, relatively, moderately, rather. The fifth set includes adverbs of
low degree: slightly, a little, a bit. The sixth set is constituted by adverbs of approximate degree: almost,
nearly. The seventh set includes adverbs of optimal degree: enough, sufficiently, adequately. The eighth set
is formed by adverbs of inadequate degree: insufficiently, intolerably, unbearably, ridiculously. The ninth
set is made up of adverbs of underdegree: hardly, scarcely.

The degree adverbs, though usually described under the heading of "quantitative", in reality
constitute a specific variety of qualitative words, or rather some sort of intermediate qualitative- quantitative
words, in so far as they are used as quality evaluators.

In this function they are distinctly different from genuine quantitative adverbs which are directly
related to numerals and thereby form sets of words of pronominal order. Such are numerical- pronominal
adverbs like twice, thrice, four times, etc.; twofold, threefold, many fold, etc.
Thus, we will agree that the first general subclass of adverbs is formed by qualitative adverbs which are
subdivided into qualitative adverbs of full notional value and degree adverbs - specific functional words.

Circumstantial adverbs are also divided into notional and functional.

The functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. Besides quantitative
(numerical) adverbs, they include adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words
are used as syntactic connectives and ques-tion-forming functionals. Here belong such words as now, here,
when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.

There are also circumstantial adverbs of more self-dependent nature, they include two basic sets:
first, adverbs of time; second, adverbs of place: today, tomorrow, already, ever, never, shortly, recently, sel-
dom, early, late; homeward, eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc.

9
 The two varieties express a general idea of temporal and spatial orientation and essentially perform
deictic (indicative) functions in the broader sense. Bearing this in mind, we may unite them under the
general heading of "orientative" adverbs, reserving the term "circumstantial" to syntactic analysis of
utterances.

The whole class of adverbs will be divided, first, into nominal and pronominal, and the nominal
adverbs will be subdivided into qualitative and orientative, the former including genuine qualitative adverbs
and degree adverbs, the latter falling into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible subdivisions of
more detailed specifications.

As is the case with adjectives, this lexemic subcategorisation of adverbs should be accompanied by a
more functional and flexible division into evaluative and specificative, connected with the categorial
expression of comparison. Each adverb subject to evaluation grading by degree words expresses the
category of comparison, much in the same way as, mutatis mutandis, adjectives do. Thus, not only
qualitative, but also orientative adverbs, providing they come under the heading of evaluative, are included
into the categorial system of comparison. Cf.: quickly - quicker - quickest - less quickly - least quickly;
frequently - more frequently - most frequently - less frequently - least frequently; ashore - more ashore -
most ashore - less ashore - least ashore, etc.

Barring the question of the uses of articles in comparative - superlative collocations, all the problems
connected with the adjectival degrees of comparison retain their force for the adverbial degrees of
comparison, including the problem of elative superlative.

6. The status of adverb-like elements in post-position to a verb (the give up type).

Special mention should be made of preposition-adverb like elements which form a semantic blend
with verbs: to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away, to give over, etc; to set up, to set in, to set forth,
to set down, etc.; to get on, to get off, to get through, to get about , etc. The verb-adverb combination goes
by several names: two-part verbs, composite verbs, phrasal verbs. The verbs in such combinations are
mostly one-syllable words; the most common adverbs are those denoting place, e.g. in, out, on, off, over, up,
down, through, etc. Some of the adverbs may be separated by objective complements, e.g. Please hand in
your papers. vs. Please hand your papers in. Others are non-separable, e.g. John called on me. vs. *John
called me on.
In verb-adverb combinations the second element may:
a) retain its adverbial properties of showing direction (e.g. to go out, to go in, to go away);
b) change the aspect of the verb, i.e. mark the completeness of the process
(e.g. to eat – to eat up; to stand – to stand up; to sit – to sit down; to lie – to lie down; to shave – to shave
off; to speak – to speak out);
c) intensify the meaning of the process (e.g. to end – to end up; to finish – to
finish up (off); to cut – to cut off; to talk – to talk away);
d) lose its lexical meaning and form an integral whole, a set expression (e.g.
to fall out ‘to quarrel’; to give in ‘to surrender’; to come off ‘to take place’; to leave off ‘to stop’; to boil
down ‘to be reduced in quantity’).
These combinations have been treated by different scholars in different ways. Some scholars have
treated the second element as a variety of adverbs, as preposition-like adverbs (A. Smirnitsky) as a special
kind of adverb called adverbial postpositon (I. E. Anichkov), as postverbial particles (L. Kivimдgi), as a
special kind of form-word called postpositive (N. N. Amosova), a postfix or postpositive affix (Y.
Zhluktenko), a separate part of speech called postposition (B.A. Ilyish). As for B. Ilyish, he later changed his
view arguing that, since the second element does not indicate the circumstances in which the process takes
place, the whole construction is a phraseological unit: the whole has a meaning different from the meanings
of the components. According to M. Blokh, these elements form a special functional set of particles based
on their functional character. He suggests the term “post-positives”.
The great variety of interpretations shows the complexity of the problem. Apparently, the problem
requires further research.

10
7. The problem of the relations between adverbs ending in - ly and adjectives.
Derivation of ly-Adverbs
Adverbs in English have a great variety of forms, meanings, and syntactic and semantic functions.
One of the striking characteristics of English adverbs is that the most typical form consists of a base form
and the suffix -ly; adverbs of this form are called ly-adverbs. Ly-adverbs can be derived by affixing -ly to
adjectives, such as in (1a), and nouns, such as in (1b):
(1) a. Adjective + -ly: briefly, fortunately, frequently, happily,
locally, possibly, carefully, specifically
b. Noun + -ly: yearly, monthly, weekly, daily, hourly;
beastly, partly, purposely
The -ly suffixed words in (1a) can only be used as adverbs while those in (1b) can be used either as
adjectives or as adverbs.
We also have an interesting kind of ly-words which are derived by suffixing -ly to color terms, such
as blackly, greenly, redly, whitely, etc. These words can be classified either as “Adjective + -ly” in (1a) or as
“Noun + -ly” in (1b) because, as is well known, color terms can be used either as adjectives or as nouns.
Turning to the ly-words in (1b), they can be classified to two types: the first type is yearly, monthly,
weekly, daily, hourly, and the second type beastly, partly, purposely. There are some differences between
these two types. The ly-adverbs of the first type are derived from calendar terms with the suffix -ly attached.
They can be used either as adjectives or as adverbs.
The ly-adverbs of the second type can only be used as adverbs though they are derived from nouns
with the suffix –ly attached. One of the most noticeable characteristics of the suffix -ly is that it is very
productive when it is used to derive adverbs from adjectives but not when it is used to derive adjectives from
nouns. First, it can derive an adverb from almost any adjectives, while it can derive adjectives from only
certain nouns; for example, we do not have such ly-adjectives as *arrowly, *clockly and *cowboyly, which
correspond to the nouns arrow, clock and cowboy, respectively.
Second, the suffix -ly can even derive adverbs from the adjectival words which are not necessarily
established as adjectives. It is well-known that ing-participles and ed-participles can have an adjectival use,
which is clear when they appear as a prenominal modifier, as shown in (2):
(2) a. It had been an exhausting day.
b. The answer is a qualified yes.
Third, the suffix -ly can also derive ly-adverbs from the ed-adjectives which are derived from noun
phrases with the suffix -ed. We have a great number of such ly-adverbs, as shown below:
absentmindedly, backhandedly, barefacedly, bigheartedly, black-heartedly, cold-bloodedly, coldheartedly,
cool-headedly, cross-leggedly, double-mindedly, downheartedly, even-handedly, evil-mindedly, etc.
Varieties of the Meanings and Functions of ly-Adverbs
A few examples will be given below to illustrate some of the various meanings and functions ly-
adverbs can have:
a) conjunctive adverb: accordingly, alternatively, contrarily, conversely, finally, etc.
b) manner of speaking adverb: basically, bluntly, briefly, candidly, confidentially, etc.
c) factive adverb: amazingly, amusingly, astonishingly, conveniently, curiously, fortunately, happily, etc.
d) modal adverb: admittedly, assuredly, certainly, clearly, necessarily, possibly, etc.
e) subject adverb: anxiously, bitterly, carefully, deliberately, etc.
f) manner adverb: absently, abstractly, accurately, busily, carefully, clearly, etc.
g) instrumental adverb: aurally, electrically, manually, etc.
h) degree adverb: absolutely, actually, badly, certainly, completely, deeply, etc.
i) viewpoint adverb: artistically, economically, ethically, financially, etc.
j) temporal adverb: concurrently, formerly, immediately, lately, previously, recently, etc.
k) locative adverb: locally, regionally, municipally, provincially, rurally, etc.
Ambiguity in the Meanings and Functions of ly-Adverbs
It is interesting to ask to what degree the meanings of ly-adverbs are related to, or can be predicted
from, those of the adjectives or adjectival words from which they are derived. Notice that a large number of
ly-adverbs are ambiguous in that they have more than one meaning and function.
(3) a. A dozen cows mooed sadly.

11
b. Sadly, he roamed the streets.
c. Sadly, our plan failed.
d. I'm sadly lacking in my knowledge.
Sadly in (3a) is a manner adverb modifying the predicate verb mooed, with the meaning “in a sad manner”.
Sadly in (12b) is a subject adverb describing the state of the subject he ( (3b) means that he was sad while he
was roaming the streets). Sadly in (3c) is a factive adverb, one kind of sentence adverb, which expresses a
speaker’s evaluative comment on the sentence or clause ( (3c) means that it was sad that our plan failed);
sadly in (3d) is a degree adverb intensifying the degree of “lacking” (“sadly lacking” has a meaning similar
to “entirely lacking”).
This fact shows that ly-adverbs and their base adjectives do not have a one-to-one correspondence in
meaning.
This fact shows that ly-adverbs and their base adjectives do not have a one-to-one correspondence in
meaning. As for this matter, Thomas Boyden Ernst states that the majority of cases of such ‘homonyms’
involve manner readings; in other words, the majority of ambiguous adverbs have a meaning of manner as
one of their meanings. It seems that this holds very widely. As can be seen from the examples in (3), the
adverb sadly has a manner interpretation in addition to at least three other interpretations. That some adverbs
have a meaning of manner means that they characterize the manner of the action expressed by a predicate,
thus they can naturally be paraphrased as “in a ____[adjective] manner (way)” or “the manner of doing
something be ____[adjective]”. The occurrence of sadly in (3a), for example, can be paraphrased as “in a
sad manner/way”, or the predicate “mooed sadly” can be paraphrased as “the manner of mooing was sad”.
Note that manner ly-adverbs can have slightly different meanings which can be paraphrased in a form “with
+ Noun” as follows: sadly, for example, can be paraphrased as “with sadness”. This kind of meaning
expresses an attendant state or circumstances of an action described by a predicate, which can be included in
a meaning of manner in its broader sense. This will be appropriate especially for the ly-adverbs which are
derived from ing-participle and ed-participle adjectives, as shown below:
(4) a. He spoke soothingly.
b. The girl reminded her smilingly.
Soothingly in (4a) means “as if he was soothing” or “while he was soothing” and smilingly in (4b) means
“while she was smiling”.
It is important to note here that there are some ly-adverbs which do not have a meaning of manner, such as
those:
certainly, fortunately, possibly, probably, surely, unfortunately
It may be natural that some ly-adverbs do not have a meaning of manner because their base
adjectives cannot appear in a “manner PP” of the form “in a ____ manner/way”; i.e., we do not have such
phrases as *in a certain way (with a meaning of manner), *in a fortunate way etc.
Note further that a few ly-adverbs do not have a manner reading even though their base adjectives
can appear in a “manner PP”. Consider the pair unbelievable and unbelievably:
(5) a. She succeeded in her business in an unbelievable way.
b. *She succeeded in her business unbelievably.
The adjective unbelievable can be used in the manner PP as in (5a), but its corresponding ly-adverb,
unbelievably, cannot have a meaning of manner, but it can appear as a sentence adverb in the sentences
below; this occurrence of unbelievably means “it is unbelievable” or “which is unbelievable”:
Predictability of the Meanings and Functions of ly-Adverbs
A very large number of ly-adverbs can express a meaning of manner, but some of them cannot. Here,
let’s consider Ernst’s claim again. He states: “…the majority of cases of such ‘homonyms’ involve manner
readings. That is, we seldom get homonymy involving, say, one degree and one domain adverb (such as
musically or economically), or one evaluative (e.g., fortunately) and one agent-oriented adverb (such as
rudely). Instead, we find pairs made up of epistemic, evaluative, agent-oriented, domain, and others, on one
hand, and a manner adverb on the other.” There are some such homonyms, though they are rare.
Surprisingly and astonishingly, for example, are ly-adverbs of this kind, as illustrated below:
(6) a. Not surprisingly, this approach did not work.
b. Washed, they came out surprisingly clear and bright.

12
 Surprisingly in (6a) is a factive sentence adverb, with a meaning of evaluation, and surprisingly in
(6b) is a degree adverb, which has a function of intensifying. In neither case does the adverb surprisingly
express a meaning of manner.
As stated above, “manner” has several nuances, say, a manner of an action and an attendant state of
an action. It is important to note here that ly-adverbs of manner usually, although not always, imply the
existence of an agent; hence they can be called agent-oriented adverbs as well as process-oriented adverbs.
Consider the following pair:
(7) a. They planned the program carefully.
b. The program was carefully planned.
The ly-adverb carefully in (7a) is process-oriented and expresses that the way of planning the
program was careful, and, at the same time, the “carefulness” implied here is attributed to the subject or
agent they. The same can be said for the occurrence of carefully in (7b), where no agent is expressed
explicitly; “carefulness” may be attributed to the unexpressed agent (or by-phrase if realized). So then
carefully can be a manner adverb because the expressions “in a careful manner/way” and “someone is
careful” are both possible, while surprisingly does not have a meaning of manner because “someone is
surprising” (cf. “someone is surprised”) is not a natural expression, although such expressions as “in a
surprising manner/ way” and “the way [action] of doing something is surprising” are possible.
Some ly-adverbs of manner do not satisfy the criteria above, such as analytically, automatically, explicitly,
mutually, optionally, publicly, specifically, because their base adjectives cannot occur in the expression
“someone is ____”, for example, the sentence “Someone is analytic” is ill-formed. These ly-adverbs can be
used only as manner adverbs.
It is necessary to try to explain the reason why some ly-adverbs such as surprisingly and
unbelievably have other meanings than manner. One of the characteristics of their corresponding adjectives
surprising and unbelievable is that they can take a clause as their subject. The ly-adverbs deriving from this
kind of adjectives can be used as sentence adverbs. Almost the same is true for such ly-adverbs as arguably,
assumably, possibly, presumably, and probably.
There are some differences between these two kinds of sentence adverbs: surprisingly, unbelievably,
etc., and probably, presumably, etc. on the other.
One of the differences is the meanings they express. Ly-adverbs of the former kind such as
amazingly, astonishingly, fortunately, happily, naturally and surprisingly have a meaning of evaluation,
which naturally follows from the meanings of their corresponding adjectives such as amazing, astonishing,
fortunate, happy, natural and surprising. The adjectives have such a general meaning that speakers make an
evaluative comment such as amazement, astonishment and happiness on a clause or proposition which they
assume is true. On the other hand, ly-adverbs of the latter kind such as arguably, assumably, possibly,
presumably and probably have a meaning of probability, which can also follow from the meanings of their
corresponding adjectives such as arguable, assumable, possible, presumable and probable. It seems that the
differences between these two kinds of sentence adverbs come from differences with respect to their
corresponding adjectives.
Finally, there is a more difficult problem with manner adverbs and sentence adverbs, which,
however, is not related with the properties of their base adjectives. Only a limited class of manner adverbs
can be used as manner of speaking adverbs (performative adverbs or speech act adverbs), such as bluntly,
briefly, candidly, confidentially, frankly, generally, honestly, personally, rudely, seriously. These adverbs
can be used in the expressions such as “to speak ____[adverb]” or “____[adverb] speaking”, for example, to
speak frankly and speaking frankly, but it is not the case that all ly-adverbs that can be used in such
expressions cannot be used as manner of speaking adverbs. For instance, to speak carefully and to speak
loudly are possible, but carefully and loudly cannot function as manner of speaking adverbs when they are
used alone.

13