SYNTACTICAL FUNCTIONS

The main function of the statives is that of predicative and in this case they are preceded by a link verb, most usually the verb be, but occasionally also fall, keep, feel. Examples with the link verb be are very numerous and varied. A few will suffice: The child was fast asleep. The whole house was astir. Something is afoot. With the link verb fall we find the stative asleep, as in the sentence He soon fell asleep. The link verb keep is found with statives, e. g. in ...but in a crafty madness keeps aloof. (SHAKESPEARE) The link verb feel is found in the sentence He felt ashamed of himself... (LINKLATER)

Statives are also occasionally found in the function of objective predicatives, particularly after the verb find or have and a noun or pronoun, as in the sentences He found his sister alone. (LINK-LATER) Then Skene spoke, and in a moment had his audience afire. (Idem)

The basically predicative quality of the statives is equally evident in all of these cases. It is somewhat weakened when a stative has the function of an attribute following its noun: A man alive to social interests. And the predicative quality of the stative is further weakened when it precedes a noun as its attribute (this is very rare indeed). The word aloof seems to have gone further than any other stative in this respect. Thus, we find such phrases as his aloof attitude, an aloof manner, etc. On the other hand, the word asleep can only be a prepositive attribute when it is preceded by the adverb fast, as in the phrase a fast-asleep child.

The phrase "be + stative" may sometimes be synonymous with the continuous form of the corresponding verb. Cf., e. g., He is asleep and He is sleeping, He was asleep and He was sleeping. We are therefore entitled to ask whether these two ways of expression are always interchangeable, or whether a difference of some kind or other exists between them. This question has not been finally answered so far.

Proceeding now to compare the statives in English with those in Russian, we find that they do not correspond to each other, i. e. a Russian stative is, it seems, never translated by an English

Syntactical Functions 75

stative, and vice versa. A few examples will suffice to illustrate the point. Such typical Russian statives as жаль, лень, тепло, холодно are never translated by statives into English: мне его жаль — I pity him, or I feel some pity for him; жаль усов — I feel sorry for my moustache; ему лень было вставать — he fell too lazy to get up; здесь тепло — it is warm here; ему холодно — he is cold, or he feels cold, etc. On the other hand, he is asleep corresponds to the Russian он спит; the ship is afloat to the Russian судно в плавании; the house was ablaze to the Russian дом был в огне, etc. It follows that the phenomena which can be expressed by statives in Russian and in English, are far from being the same.

The existence of statives as a separate part of speech is not universally recognised either for the Russian or for the English language. We will not enter into details of the problems in reference to Russian but we will briefly consider some objections which have been raised against the stative as a part of speech in Modern English. L.S.Barkhudarov in an article published in 1958 ¹ denies the existence of statives in English on the following grounds: (1) the meaning of "state" is merely a special variety of the meaning of "property" typical of adjectives, (2) words of this category can be preceded by the word more: more ashamed, etc., (3) they can be modified by adverbs (painfully alive), by prepositional phrases (alive with stars) and they can be the predicative, a postpositional or detached attribute, and, less frequently, a prepositive attribute: In the United States the problem of dealing with names of foreign extraction is an alive one. (MCKNIGHT)

The conclusion L. Barkhudarov arrives at is that words of this type are adjectives, which of course is the traditional view. However, these arguments are not binding. They are based on several assumptions which are by no means self-evident or necessary. Thus, there is nothing to prove that the notion of "state" cannot be the foundation of a separate part of speech. Each of the theories here discussed is based on certain conceptions which pave the way to the respective conclusions. The choice should be made in favour of the one that gives a simpler and more consistent presentation of language facts.

¹ See Л. С. Бархударов, О так называемой «категории состояния». Иностранные языки в школе, 1958, № 6, стр. 114.