Adjectives
Adjectives constitute a major open word class and this guide is
accordingly quite long.
If you are here for the first time, the advice is to work through it
sequentially but if you are returning to check something, here's a list
of the contents to take you to its various sections.
Clicking on -top- at the end of each section will
bring you back to this menu.
There are some long lists in what follows. If you would like the most important of them as a PDF document, it is available from the list of related links at the end.
Definitions |
Task: Easy questions: What's an adjective? Can you tell a word is an adjective by looking at it and seeing how it behaves? Can you give a brief definition of 'adjective'? Click here when you have answers. |
Usually people's definitions include something like 'a
word which modifies or defines a noun'. That, as we shall see,
is only half right.
Others may have come up with some (or all) of the following
tests for an adjective:
- Adjectives occur after the verb to be
so we get, e.g., he is young - Adjectives come after articles and before nouns
so we get, e.g., the new car - Adjectives can be modified with the adverb very
so we get, e.g., very nice, very interesting - Adjectives can occur in the comparative and
superlative by adding er / -est
to the end or by using more / most
before them
so we get, e.g., nicer and most pleasant - Adjectives form adverbs with the addition of
-ly
so we get, e.g., nice - nicely, stupid - stupidly
You may already have spotted that there are problems with all of these definitions. Mentally put a tick in the following grid if the word conforms to the tests above (A to E).
Click on the table to see the answers.
As you can see, only happy actually
conforms to all the tests for adjectiveness. We can have:
he is happy (A)
a happy man (B)
a very happy man (C)
the happiest
man (D)
he spoke happily (E)
However, as we go down the list
some of the tests fail.
We can't have *oldly (but all
the other tests work for this word). Many adjectives do not
have parallel adverb forms for semantic rather than structural reasons.
The meaning of the adjective simply cannot be extended to become a verb
modifier so we do not allow, for example:
She spoke bigly
They did it youngly
We can't say *toppest (but we can
have he is top, the top student and, cheating a bit,
the very top).
We can say he is two
and the two students but we can't have *very two, *twoer
or *twoly
We can say he is asleep
but we do not allow *the asleep man, *a very asleep man, an
asleeper man
or asleeply.
Of course, want isn't an adjective at all so none of the
tests works.
This part of the guide is based on
Crystal, 1987, p 92.
Central and peripheral adjectives |
As we saw above, some adjectives do not fulfil all the
criteria to be classed as adjectives but are still recognisably
adjectival in terms of their grammatical function.
The essential distinction here is:
- Central adjectives:
-
- Test A:
Can occur predicatively as the subject or object complement after a copular or pseudo-copular verb such as , be, seem, grow, appear etc. For example:
He seemed happy
They grew defensive
They made me unhappy
They called her stupid - Test B:
Can occur attributively (i.e., directly before or, much less frequently, after the noun phrase) and not connected to it by a verb like be, seem, appear, grow etc.). They slot in between the determiner (articles in this case) and the noun when appearing before the noun. For example:
He is a happy man
The old woman
The meeting proper started late
The people responsible were arrested - Test C:
Are gradable so can be modified with amplifiers, limiters and downtoners like very, extremely, not quite, marginally etc. For example:
He was very unhappy
She was extremely frightened
I was marginally satisfied
A mostly satisfied customer
etc. - Test D:
Take comparative and superlative forms. For example:
The wisest man
The most interesting man
The cleverer man
That wine is the best
etc. - Test E:
Form adverbs with the addition of a suffix (not necessarily but usually -ly or -ally). For example:
wise → wisely
happy → happily
drastic → drastically
- Test A:
- Peripheral adjectives:
- Are those adjectives which do not fulfil all these
criteria.
These include any which do not do one of the five things that central adjectives do such as asleep, bottom, alphabetic, proper etc. In fact, some words which are very marginal (such as numerals and ordinals) are better classified as something else entirely (determiners, for example).
Examples of how peripheral adjectives cannot perform the five functions above are:
- Cannot occur predicatively:
*The figure appeared particular
*The excuse seemed main
*A teacher was former
*A stranger was total
In these cases, we prefer:
The particular figure
The main excuse
A former teacher
A total stranger - Cannot occur attributively:
*The asleep dog
*The ready man
*An ill child
In all these cases, we prefer:
The dog seems asleep
The man is ready
A child appeared ill - Are not gradable with very:
*He was very unconscious
*The restaurant was very deserted
*I was very freezing
etc.
In these cases, other adverbs are required (see below). - Do not take comparative and superlative forms. For
example:
*The people were more asleep
*The situation was perfecter
*The most boiling water
etc. - Do not form adverbs. For example:
asleep → *asleeply
devoid → *devoidly
hand made → *hand madely
- Cannot occur predicatively:
This guide considers both central and peripheral adjectives although the categories are not watertight, as we shall see.
Forming adjectives |
Many adjectives are not formed from other word classes and are, indeed, often the bases from which other word classes can be formed so, for example, the adjective able can be used as the base to form ability, the adjective clean forms the base of the noun cleanliness and, by conversion, the verb clean and the adjective difficult forms the base of the noun difficulty. There are hundreds more examples and, of course, the adjective is often the base from which adverbs are formed.
However, there are conventional ways to form adjectives from words in other classes:
- From nouns:
- Adding -ly as in
friend → friendly | mother → motherly | home → homely etc.
(See below. This suffix is no longer very productive of new adjectives in English.)
Adding -y as in
grass → grassy | leaf → leafy | hair → hairy etc.
This is still very productive of new adjectives and people often simply tack the suffix on to make a new adjective which serves for the time being (a nonce word) such as:
a lawny sort of place, a chromy kind of colour etc. Frequently these are modified with sort of, kind of etc.
The suffix is particularly productive in making adjectives from names of materials, how things look and the properties they have as in woody, papery, grassy, leafy, hardy, lumpy and so on.
Adding -al as in
music → musical | function → functional | occupation → occupational etc.
Adding -ic as in
hero → heroic | metal → metallic | patriot → patriotic etc.
Adding -ese (for nationalities) as in
Japan → Japanese | Siam → Siamese | China → Chinese | Vietnam → Vietnamese etc.
Adding -ate as in
compassion → compassionate | college → collegiate | passion → passionate etc.
This suffix is more often used for forming verbs, in fact.
Adding -ary as in
parliament → parliamentary / discretion → discretionary / compliment → complimentary / precaution → precautionary etc.
Adding -ish as in
fool → foolish | child → childish | man → mannish etc.
Adding -ous as in
courage → courageous | advantage → advantageous | synonym → synonymous etc.
Adding -less as in
clue → clueless | accent → accentless | spot → spotless etc.
Adding -ful as in
man → manful | art → artful | beauty → beautiful | help → helpful | hope → hopeful | boast → boastful etc.
Adding -like as in
child → childlike | life → lifelike | dream → dreamlike etc.
This is a very productive suffix for forming new adjectives from nouns. The suffix is also used to form adjectives from frozen similes constructed with the like or as ... as formulations so we get, e.g.:
a grip like a vice → a vice-like grip, as stubborn as a mule → mule-like stubbornness etc.
Adding -ward for directions (often also adverb uses) as in
home → homeward / north → northward / down → downward / back → backward / sea → seaward etc. - From verbs:
- Adding -ive as in
attract → attractive | select → selective | abuse → abusive etc.
Adding -able as in
drink → drinkable | fix → fixable | do → doable etc.
This is a productive suffix and can be used to form on-the-spot nonce words when the need arises such as cutable, stickable, parkable etc. Few of these forms survive beyond the conversation in which they occur.
Adding -ible as in
access → accessible | force → forcible | digest → digestible etc.
This suffix is no longer productive and no new coinages are possible. Many are derived from base verbs or nouns no longer in the language such as edible, negligible, plausible, eligible etc. in which the base forms, ed-, neglig-, plaus-, elig- are traceable to Latin roots but are bound bases in that they do not appear independently.
Adding -ent or -ant as in:
fluoresce → flourescent | depend → dependent | insist → insistent / resist → resistant / comply → compliant / observe → observant etc.
Again, these suffixes are no longer productive and again, some adjectives are derived from Latin bases no longer, or which never were, in the language such as incipient, quiescent, recumbent, negligent, truculent, cognizant, elegant, relevant, distant etc.
Adding -ing or -ed or using the irregular participle form as in
surprise → surprised / surprising | break → broken / breaking | sink → sunken / sinking etc.
Simply alerting your learners to the adjectives which may be formed
from words they encounter is a useful way to increase their personal
lexicons quite painlessly.
It is also the case that many of the suffixes above can
only be adjectival
in nature and that helps considerably to unpack the meaning of what
learners see and hear.
For example:
- words ending -al and -ic are overwhelmingly adjectives although a few are nouns (often converted from adjectives), such as intellectual, chemical, principal, mechanic, alcoholic, sceptic etc.
- words ending in -ous are always adjectives
- words ending in -less are almost always adjectives but those ending in -ful can also be nouns (handful, houseful, cupful etc.)
- words ending in -like (whether hyphenated or not) are always adjectives
- words ending in -ive (as a suffix) are always adjectives
- words ending in -ible and -able are always adjectives (although compounds with table may confuse the easily confused)
- words ending in -ent are less easily seen as adjectives because of the common -ment suffix for making nouns but as a suffix on its own, -ent is adjective forming
Unfortunately, it is also the case that many adjectives do not have a
distinctive form in English (unlike some other languages) so words like
broad, hollow, tight, faint, brief, blue, rotten, deep, old, young
and hundreds more can only be identified as adjectives by seeing what
they do in a sentence, i.e., identifying their grammatical function.
Even that, as we shall see, is not always as straightforward as spotting
the relationship between the word and a noun.
For reference, here is an alphabetic list of 25 adjective-forming
suffixes, with examples:
Suffix | Example | Suffix | Example | Suffix | Example | Suffix | Example | Suffix | Example |
-able | lovable | -ative | cooperative | -ible | permissible | -ive | attractive | -ory | transitory |
-al | sensational | -(e)d* | terraced | -ic | heroic | -less | harmless | -ous | courageous |
-ant | observant | -ent | flourescent | -ing | exciting | -like | childlike | -some | toothsome |
-ary | imaginary | -ese | Japanese | -ish | foolish | -long | headling | -ward | homeward |
-ate | compassionate | -ful | hopeful | -itive | competitive | -ly | friendly | -y | hairy |
the drunken party
the broken furniture
etc.
Adjectives masquerading as adverbs |
An area which causes a good deal of difficulty for learners
(and many other users of English) is the sheer number of
adjectives which are formed with the -ly ending which many
associate purely with adverbs. The ending is the preferred
way to make adverbs in Modern English but here is a list
of adjectives masquerading as adverbs. These cause some
awkwardness when we try to form the corresponding adverb because
words such as friendlily and livelily are so
unattractive to the ear.
In this list, the items marked * are also usable as adverbs.
authorly beastly bodily brambly bubbly burly chilly comely costly cowardly crackly crawly crinkly crumbly cuddly courtly curly * daily dastardly deadly deathly disorderly drizzly * early earthly easterly elderly fatherly fiddly * fortnightly friendly |
frilly gangly gentlemanly ghastly ghostly dastardly deadly deathly disorderly drizzly * early giggly girly godly goodly gravelly grisly grizzly heavenly hilly holy homely * hourly jolly * kindly kingly knobbly leisurely likely lively lonely |
lovely lowly maidenly manly mannerly masterly matronly measly melancholy miserly * monthly motherly muscly * nightly neighbourly northerly oily * only orderly otherworldly painterly pally pearly pebbly pimply portly prickly priestly princely * quarterly queenly |
rumbly saintly scaly scholarly seemly shapely shaly shelly sisterly slovenly smelly southerly shingly sickly silly slatternly slovenly sly southerly sparkly spindly sprightly squally squiggly stately steely straggly stubbly surly thistly tickly |
timely treacly ugly unearthly unfriendly ungainly ungentlemanly ungodly unholy * unkindly unlikely unlovely unmannerly unmanly unruly unseemly unsightly untimely unworldly * weekly westerly wifely wily wobbly womanly woolly worldly wriggly wrinkly writerly * yearly |
A few notes:
- Adverbs formed from such adjectives are so unappealing to
many that the preferred adverbial expression will be something
like
in a(n) [adjective] manner / way. for example:
She welcomed us in a friendly manner
rather than
She welcomed us friendlily
The adjective sly is an exception, forming the adverb normally. - Nonce words, such as jungly or tangly, may
often be formed this way from nouns ending in -le because the -y suffix is still
very productive in the formation of adjectives from nouns.
However, the -ly suffix, once used widely to form new adjectives (as the list above shows), is now much less productive, having been overtaken in English by -like so we have childlike, warlike, godlike, businesslike and so on. The -like ending (sometimes hyphenated) is also used to form nonce adjectives such as soldier-like, saucer-like etc.
It is still possible to use the -ly ending to form new adjectives such as teacherly, schoolmasterly etc. but such coinages are rare. - The words kindly and unkindly function as
both adjectives and adverbs as in respectively:
He was a kindly man
It was unkindly said - Adjectives referring to definite frequency such as daily, monthly etc. are also used
adverbially so we see both:
It's a daily event
She delivers the figures monthly
The words seasonally and annually do not work in this way, being confined to adverb status, derived from the adjectives seasonal and annual. - The word early functions as an adjective or an
adverb so we
can have:
We had an early breakfast
and
We ate breakfast early - The word only is usually adverbial but functions as
an adjective in, e.g.:
She's an only child
That not the only reason
If you would like the list above as a PDF document, it is
available
here.
It also forms part of the list of adjectives with special
characteristics, available from the link at the end.
A few adjective-adverb forms are identical and the list includes
hard and fast so we find:
It's a fast car
It's a hard job
She drove too fast
They worked very hard
And also:
We need an outside light
We went outside
He's in the upstairs / downstairs study
He walked upstairs / downstairs
etc.
Finally, there are some adjectives which take on adverb-like
characteristics because, semantically, they imply the description of
a verb not a noun. In this list we find:
She's a hard worker (i.e., She works hard)
It's a fast road (i.e., You can drive fast on it)
They are frequent visitors (i.e., They visit
frequently)
I was a heavy smoker (i.e., I smoked heavily)
She's a light sleeper (i.e., She sleeps lightly)
They are occasional customers (i.e., They come
occasionally)
It was heavy rain (i.e., It rained heavily)
She's an attractive writer (i.e., She writes
attractively)
He's a beautiful dancer (i.e., He dances
beautifully)
Prefixing adjectives |
|
independent |
Many adjectives also accept prefixation which alters their meaning while retaining their word class. There is a good deal more on the meaning of a range of prefixes in the guide to word formation, linked at the end, so some examples here will suffice:
- attitude
- co-operative, counter-productive, dys-functional etc.
- negative
- un-important, ir-relevant, non-porous etc.
- critical
- mal-adjusted, pseudo-authentic, quasi-military etc.
- number
- mono-lingual, bi-annual, multi-functional etc.
- place
- sub-terranean, trans-atlantic, inter-national etc.
- time
- pre-war, post-industrial, re-stated etc.
- degree
- super-natural, under-stated, hyper-active etc.
The right-headed nature of English means that the second element determines the word class and the first element modifies the meaning of the adjective.
Adjectives and Syntax |
Syntactically, adjectives are quite complicated so, for
teaching purposes, you would be well advised to focus on
discrete areas, especially at lower levels.
Teachers also need to be alert to the characteristics of
adjectives as and when they arise in any teaching session
because restrictions to the use are common. If learners
are not told what restrictions apply to adjectives they
encounter, they will, naturally enough, assume that they work as
central adjectives.
Stative and Dynamic uses |
Most adjectives are stative. I.e., they refer to a state in being or a condition, for example:
- The milk smells sour
- The tall girl
- The blue window frame
etc.
The milk cannot become fresh, the girl cannot affect how tall she is and
the window frame will remain blue.
There are two consequences:
- Stative adjectives are not used with progressive tense forms: we cannot have
*The milk is smelling sour
or
*The girl is looking tall. - Stative adjectives are not used with imperatives: we cannot have
*Be tall
*Don't be French
*Be young
*Be important
for example.
Dynamic adjectives, by contrast, are to some extent under the control of whomever or
whatever they describe.
Examples are: agreeable, calm, careful, cruel, difficult,
disruptive, envious, friendly, good, happy, impatient, obedient,
obnoxious, proud, rude, shy, suspicious, troublesome, unkind, vain etc.
When adjectives are dynamic (or used that way), it is appropriate
to use them with progressive tense forms and in the imperative:
- She's being rather disruptive
- Don't be so vain
- Be helpful
- The girl is being unkind
- The car is becoming troublesome
- The children are being very good
They describe a quality which can be varied by the noun it refers to
and is open to subjective rating. The nouns with which they
collocate are generally animate because we do not perceive inanimate
objects acting on themselves.
Occasionally, inanimate subjects may
be used but generally as something called a pathetic fallacy.
An example is
The weather is being disruptive
in which the speaker is imposing a human attribute on an inanimate
noun. The example above of the car is becoming troublesome is
another pathetic fallacy. Cars and other machines do not intend to
be troublesome or unreliable although it may seem that way.
The list
will, therefore, include many adjectives which describe personality or
behaviour.
With a slight change in meaning, many adjectives in this list can be used both statively and dynamically. For example:
- The program is unhelpful
(stative use)
vs.
The man is trying to be unhelpful (dynamic use) - He's a kind person (stative use)
vs.
Be kind! (dynamic use) - This is good cake (stative use)
vs.
The children are being unusually good (dynamic use) - This is a difficult issue
(stative use)
vs.
He's being difficult (dynamic use)
The following are used dynamically (and many can also be used statively) but the list is not exhaustive.
agreeable angry awkward bewildered brave calm careful clever clumsy |
cruel disruptive eager embarrassed faithful fierce foolish friendly gentle |
good grateful grumpy happy helpful impatient jealous kind lazy |
mysterious nice obedient obnoxious patient proud repulsive rude shy |
silly suspicious thoughtless uptight vacuous vain witty worried zealous |
This list also forms part of the list of adjectives with special characteristics, available from the link at the end.
Restrictions on the use of these dynamic adjectives are mostly semantic in that the meaning of some of them forbids the use of a progressive verb form or simple imperative:- Progressive aspect use
Not all of these can conventionally be used with the progressive form of the verb.
We can have:
He is being obedient
and:
He is being stupid
because both attributes are, at least some extent, under the control of the person in question.
However, we cannot have:
*She is being bewildered
*She is being embarrassed
because the sense of the adjective is that it is beyond the person's control.
A few adjectives vary in use depending on In the sense in which they are used. An example is the adjective suspicious which varies depending on whether the person suspects something or is being suspected of something so:
He looks suspicious
can mean either that he is suspected or that he suspects but
She is looking suspicious
can only usually mean that she suspects something. - Imperative mood use
The use with the imperative is slightly more forgiving.
Not all of these can conventionally be used with the imperative forms of the verb.
We can have
Be obedient!
and
Be grateful!
because these are attributes under the control of the individual addressed but, of course, we cannot allow:
*Be fat!
because this is not something that the individual can change.
We can also have
Don't be bewildered!
and
Don't be embarrassed!
but not
*She is being bewildered
*She is being embarrassed
because the sense of the adjective is that it is possible for the person to control a sense of embarrassment or bewilderment but not to be progressively in that condition.
Again, an adjective like suspicious shows its double nature. We can allow:
Don't be suspicious!
and
Be suspicious!
when the reference is to how the person feels but this is the only sense in which the adjective may be used in the imperative.
There are two supplementary issues concerning the use in the imperative:- Negative uses
Some of these, mostly the negative ones, only allow a negative imperative: angry, jealous, cruel, clumsy, repulsive, obnoxious etc. We can have, therefore:
Don't be impatient
and
Don't be repulsive
but
?Be impatient
and
?Be repulsive
are very unusual if not wrong. (But note, Be afraid, be very afraid.) - Shades of meaning
A few have quite subtle shades of meaning when used statively or dynamically. For example:
Don't be clever!
or
You are just being clever
imply criticism of someone for being too sharp or showing off and
The animal is fierce
is a stative use and we cannot allow
*The animal is being fierce
but
Don't be fierce!
is a dynamic use reserved for people who, it is presumed, can control their behaviour in a way the animals do not.
- Negative uses
Predicative or Attributive? |
|
three brown eggs the eggs are brown |
- An attributive adjective directly pre-modifies (or, more rarely, post-modifies) the noun it describes.
- For example:
the lovely picture
the huge population
the deafening roar
something nice
the people responsible
the definition proper
etc. - A predicative adjective follows the noun, after a copular, pseudo-copular or causative verb, and can be
- either
a subject complement
He is angry
She looks tired
The car is economical
where angry, tired and economical refer to the subjects of the clause (he, she, the car)
or
an object complement
You made him angry
It got him impatient
She called me stupid
I painted the door green
The jury found her innocent
where angry, impatient, stupid, green and innocent refer to the objects of the clause (him, him, me, the door, her).
The verbs make and get in this case are causative verbs.
The verb used with subject-complement predicative adjectives need not be be. It can be any of a number of other, pseuso-copular verbs such as seem, sound, appear, feel, look (like) etc. (For more, see the guide to copular verbs and their complements on this site, linked in the list of related guides at the end.)
Modifying a clause |
Predicative adjectives only can refer to a clause:
- The clause may be finite as in, e.g.:
What you want is impossible
When he will arrive is unknown
How she managed to persuade him is mysterious
She thought what I said was idiotic - Or it may be non-finite as in, e.g.:
Learning English is quite easy
To take the bus is cheaper
To have expected any other result was daft
Saying that was unwise
In English, we cannot use an attributive adjective to modify a clause, so,
*Impossible what you want
is unacceptable.
That is not the case in all languages and in some a clause can be
modified attributively with an adjective. This may lead to errors
such as:
*Difficult how you do it
*Simple doing that
etc.
So, no, adjectives don't only modify nouns, they can also modify clauses providing:
- the clause is nominalised (i.e., acting as a noun as the subject or object of a verb) and
- the adjective is used predicatively.
Adjectives only used predicatively (after the noun and connected by a copular or pseudo-copular verb) |
There are four areas to consider here:
- The a-series adjectives
These include the usually disyllabic adjectives beginning in a, hence the name. An almost(?) complete list is:ablaze
abreast
abroad
adrift
afire
aflame
afloat
afoot
afraid
agape
aglitteraglow
agog
aground
ajar
akin
alight
alike
alive
alone
amiss
amokapart
askance
aslant
asleep
astir
atilt
averse
awake
aware
awash
awry
Many of these adjectives derive from an obsolete Old English preposition, a, meaning on, and a verb. For example, awake derives from a + wacan (arise).
Some of these are rarely used with the colourless be copula and are almost confined to certain combinations with particular pseudo-copular verbs as in, e.g.
look askance
go awry
look alike
take amiss
become averse
etc.
We have included abreast in the list but its adjective use is often confused with the adverbial use. As an adjective, it is generally used with the verb keep and means something akin to up to date. Most usually, it's an adverb as in, e.g.:
They were walking three abreast
The word akin often requires complementation (see below for others) as in, e.g.:
The second issue is akin to the first
Other similarly formed words are often cited as adjectives but are not and these include:
abaft, aback, aboard, ahead, amok
all of which are adverbs (although abaft and aboard are a nautical prepositions, too).- None of the true a-series adjectives can be used attributively so we cannot
allow:
*an asleep man
*the afloat boat - Negative derived adjectives are slightly irregular:
unaware, unalike, unafraid and the rare BrE unawake
are not used attributively but unashamed and unabashed are occasionally seen in attributive structures but the predicative use is almost always preferred (and the way for learners to understand them). - The adjective aplenty does not belong in this group structurally and is discussed below in the consideration of post-positioned adjectives.
- See below under too, enough and so for a small complication of the a-series of adjectives concerning their modification.
- The a-series of adjectives can, however, be used attributively if
they are modified (either with another adjective, making a double
adjective or with an adverb) so we allow, for example:
The wide-awake child
The half-aground ship
The deeply ashamed pupils
The very alert dog
etc.
There is more on modification to come.
abrupt
acerbic
acute
adept
alarmedalert
amazed
amenable
amusing
annoyingarid
astonishing
astounding
astute
avid
The man was amazed
The amazed man
An abrupt end
The end was abrupt
An acerbic response
Her response was acerbic
An acute problem
The problem was acute
Readers who are alert
Alert readers
and so on.
(The adjective rife (meaning prevalent or common) is also a predicative-only item so while we allow:
Crime is rife in this neighbourhood
we do not allow
*This neighbourhood has rife crime
The adjective is also commonly used with pseudo-copular verbs such as seem or appear (see below).) - None of the true a-series adjectives can be used attributively so we cannot
allow:
- Dynamic vs. stative use
When adjectives are used dynamically, predicative position is used. We have, therefore, a difference in meaning between these pairs:
The rude girl in room 12
which is a stative use because we imagine the girl is usually or always rude so the attributive adjective use is chosen
vs.
The girl in room 12 is being rude
which implies that her behaviour is not permanent but under her control so the predicative use is the only available choice.
The patient customers waited in line
in which we assume the people were characteristically patient
vs.
The customers were patient and waiting in line
in which no characteristic behaviour is implied and the customers might suddenly decide to become impatient.
In both cases, a stative adjective may be used predicatively, but not the other way around so
The girl in room 12 is rude = The rude girl in room 12
and
The customers were patient = The patient customers
are possible with no change in meaning.
The rule is that stative adjective use can be both predicative and attributive but dynamic adjective use demands only the predicative form.
- Adjectives requiring complementation
Some adjectives require an explicit or implicit complement and, for that reason, can only be used predicatively. For example:- The book is devoid of humour
not
*The devoid book - She is fond of the children
not
*The fond person
(but this adjective is used attributively (only) in its sense of treasured as in, e.g.:
It was a fond memory). - The woman was content with the answer
not
*The content woman - The students were inclined to cheat
not
*The inclined students - The policy is tantamount to giving up completely
not
*The tantamount policy - She is accustomed to the weather
not
*The accustomed woman
She is wont to complain
and requires complementation with a to-infinitive.)
See below for more on adjective complementation with prepositional phrases. - The book is devoid of humour
- Pseudo-copular verbs
Pseudo-copular verbs is the name sometimes given to verbs like feel, seem, stay, remain, taste, smell, become, grow etc. which perform a similar function to the colourless copular verb be in linking the subject and an attribute. With these, predicative use is the only possible structure:
The woman feels ill
is not the same as:
The ill woman
The garden became overgrown
is not the same as
The overgrown garden
The manager grew angrier
is not the same as
The angrier manager
etc.
With these verbs, health adjectives, in particular, are frequent and the adjectives cannot be used attributively. For example:
The woman felt faint
not
*The faint woman
The adjective faint has an alternative downtoning meaning of not strong a and can be used attributively as in, e.g.:
A faint sound
The adjective bad is somewhat ambiguous in this respect. For example:
She felt bad
could imply that she felt unwell or that she felt guilty although this can be disambiguated with the use of the adverb so:
She felt badly
can only mean unhappy or guilty, not unwell.
The adjectives good and well are distinguishable with the pseudo-copular verb look so:
The boy looks well
and
The boy looks good
are different because the first means:
The boy looks healthy
and the second means
The boy looks smart
Adjectives only used attributively
|
- Intensifiers: amplifiers, limiters and downtoners
Intensifiers emphasise, enhance, limit or reduce. Some common adjective intensifiers are:Emphasisers Amplifiers Limiters Downtoners certain
clear
definite
mere
plain
real
true
entire
complete
perfect
outright
pure
sheer
utterchief
main
only
same
precise
sole
rightfulfaint
feeble
poor
minor
slender
slight
We cannot safely use emphasisers, amplifiers or limiters predicatively. We can have, for example, the attributive uses as in:
The main reason
The utter madman
The outright idiocy
A mere feeling
The rightful heir
etc.
but not predicative uses:
*The reason is main
*The madman was utter
*The idiocy was outright
*The feeling was mere
*The heir was rightful
There are, however, some complications to consider (and these are considered more fully in the guide to intensifying adjectives linked below).- Non-intensifying, non-limiting meanings
Some of these adjectives have non-amplifying meanings and can be used predicatively. Compare, for example:
His work was complete (non-intensifying use)
or
The complete works of Shakespeare (intensifying use)
If we say:
The works of Shakespeare were complete
then we are suggesting that the playwright had finished everything he wanted to write.
Compare these uses with:
The complete fool (emphasising use)
but not:
*The fool is complete
and
The measurement was precise (non-limiting use)
or
The precise measurement was 6.246mm (non-limiting use)
with
The precise reason (limiting use)
but not:
*The reason is precise
The rule is that adjectives used as emphasisers or limiters can't be predicative.
-
Inherent vs. non-inherent properties
The distinction between these ideas is discussed in the next section but, briefly, when intensifying adjectives refer to the noun directly (describing its inherent and unchanging quality) we can use them both predicatively and attributively as in, e.g.:
There was great damage to the town
The damage to the town was great
However, sometimes the adjective does not refer to the noun but to an associated idea as in, e.g.:
She's a great friend of the family
in which great refers to her friendship, not to her directly. In this case, we cannot use the adjective predicatively and produce
The friend is great
because that implies an inherent quality of the person and is not what we mean. - Downtoners
These are distinguished in the table above because they may be used predicatively and attributively so we allow all of these examples:
A slight earthquake
A faint sound
The sound was faint
Their excuse was feeble
The problem was minor
The grounds for action were slender
The effect was slight
Nevertheless, the preferred use is often attributive.
- Non-intensifying, non-limiting meanings
- Noun-derived adjectives
are confined to attributive use, so we allow
biological laboratory
chemical plant
nuclear fission
countryside authority
etc.
but not
*The laboratory is biological
*The plant is chemical
etc. - Archaic participles
always appear in attributive structures so we encounter:
a sunken ship
a drunken party
a shrunken head
a stricken look
a graven image
a woven carpet
a cloven hoof
but not
*The ship is sunken
*The party is drunken
*The image is graven
etc. - Adjectives derived from or close in meaning to adverbs
do not appear predicatively so we see, e.g.:
an indoor event
an outside door
the upstairs windows
an uptown area
but when the structure is altered, the items take on their adverbial nature as in e.g.:
the door leads outside
we enjoyed ourselves uptown
etc. and these are not examples of adjective uses at all. - Adjectives referring to a noun which has already been
identified
do not appear predicatively so we have, for example:
He is the same man you saw
That's the very tool I asked for
That's the exact quotation she wanted
But we cannot allow these adjectives (the list also includes particular, and self-same) to appear in the predicative slot as, e.g.:
*The man is same
etc. - Adjectives which limit the noun by time or place
These include, for example:
The former president
His then teacher
The house's previous occupant
The present company
The future games
A southern gentleman
A northern accent
An urban setting
A rural dwelling
etc. and we cannot have
*The president was former
*The teacher was then
*The occupant was previous
etc.
- abiding and aforesaid
These two adjectives look like members of the a-series adjectives (which generally are only used predicatively) but are, in fact, only used attributively so we find:
The abiding problem
but not
*The problem was abiding
and
The aforesaid proposition
but not
*The proposition is aforesaid - little and
small
These two words differ slightly insofar as little is usually confined to attributive use but small may appear in both positions so, e.g., we allow:
It was a small house near the river
and
It was a little house near the river
but we usually prefer
The house near the river was small
over
?The house near the river was little.
See below for the oddity with small and little when it comes to comparative and superlative uses.
(The other issue with the difference between small and little is that the second of these contains the connotation of attractive which the first does not. We would prefer, therefore:
What a lovely little kitten
to
What a lovely small kitten.) - fine
The adjective fine is also unusual in this respect:
When it is used attributively, the sense is of high quality or delicate construction as in, for example:
It's a fine, old building
That's a fine distinction
We need a finer filter
When it is used predicatively, the sense is not ill, not damaged, not faulty or happy as in, e.g.:
The dog is fine
I'm feeling fine now, thanks
There is, therefore, a distinction in meaning between:
The car is fine (in good condition)
vs.
It's a fine car (of good quality)
Inherent and non-inherent qualities |
Most adjectives describe a particular quality of a noun. For example, a blue car tells us about the car. What we mean here is that blue is an inherent quality of the car itself. However, more than a few adjectives can be used non-inherently. Consider for example:
- He's an old friend
(non-inherent)
vs.
He's an old man (inherent) - She's a small businesswoman
(non-inherent)
vs.
She's a small woman (inherent) - He's a heavy drinker
(non-inherent)
vs.
He's a heavy man (inherent)
In the first of these examples, it is not the noun itself that is old, small or heavy; it is what we associate with the noun which carries the quality. In these cases, it is the friendship, the business or the drinking which is old, small or heavy. That's non-inherent use.
Friends, enemies and relations |
There are other adjectives which also apply non-inherently to the
word friend (or a synonym such as pal, acquaintance,
chum, ally, mate etc.). For example, the following will
be understood to refer non-inherently to the relationship not to the
person directly:
She's a close friend
They are long-standing chums
Mary is a nodding acquaintance
The countries are close allies
He's a good friend
They are intimate pals
She's a devoted friend
They are great mates
and so on.
When the adjective is used predicatively, however, we either get a
very different meaning of we get nonsense as in:
The friend is close
The acquaintance is nodding
My friend is good
The pals are intimate
Her friend is devoted
The mates are great
The word relative (and cousin but no other
kinship term) exhibits the
same phenomenon but with fewer collocating adjectives:
She's a close relative
They are distant relatives
She's a distant cousin
etc., none of which will be taken to refer to physical
proximity but to the nearness of the family relationship.
It can be seen that any adjective which cannot apply to a
relationship will automatically be understood as referring to an
inherent property of the noun.
She's a tall friend
although that would usually be preferred as
My friend is tall
because tall cannot collocate with friendship
or any other kind of relationship.
The opposite also applies with the word enemy and its
synonyms (although some different adjectives may be appropriate
collocates) so we have, e.g.:
They are bitter enemies
Mary and Joan are old adversaries
They are long-standing rivals
etc. in which it is the enmity, competition and rivalry
which are being described.
There is a grey area here and a source of some confusion for a
hearer because some adjectives can apply to both the person and the
relationship. In, e.g.:
He's a reliable friend
She's a remarkable friend
She's her little sister
it isn't wholly clear whether reference is being made to a
reliable / remarkable person, a reliable / remarkable friendship or
a smaller or younger person.
Ambiguity can be avoided by using the adjective predicatively
because then the assumption will always be that it applies to the
person:
My friend is reliable
Her friend is remarkable
Her sister is little
although in the last case, small would be preferred
because of the positive connotations of little.
New, young and old |
The adjective new is often cited as the antonym of
old and that is the case when it applied to inanimate objects.
Unlike old however, the use is ambiguous. For
example:
There's a new car in the car park
That car in the car park is new
could both mean either:
that the car has recently appeared (so the
use in non-inherent and applies to its position)
or
that the car is,
in fact, recently manufactured.
Which meaning is understood may depend on the noun and be
semantically determined so, for example:
She's a new acquaintance
can only be understood as a recent acquaintance, not a new person.
When the adjective is applied to people, then, only the non-inherent
use is understood because for animate nouns, the opposite of old
is young. Therefore:
The colleague is new
or
She's a new friend
can both only refer to the non-inherent quality of being a recently
employed person or acquired friend.
The adjective young suffers from no such ambiguity so,
e.g.:
My young friend is here
can only be a reference to the person's age.
When young is applied to inanimate objects, the use is
often metaphorical so we encounter:
This is a young company
which sounds more innovative and flexible than
This is a new company
which implies that it may be inexperienced.
The adjective old, on the other hand does not work exactly
like its antonym new so while:
He's an old colleage
and
She's an old friend
both refer to the relationship,
The colleague is old
and
My friend is old
will both be taken to refer inherently to the age of the person in
quation.
Emotive and taboo adjectives |
A few adjectives denoting the speaker's emotional state are used
attributively only in certain senses and, when used predicatively,
have a different, usually more literal, interpretation. So ,we encounter, for example:
that damned man
signalling dislike, whereas:
the man was damned
signals that the man was sent to hell.
the poor child
signals the speaker's sympathy, whereas:
the child was poor
refers to the child's financial hardship.
my dear friend
refers to the speaker's affection for a friend whereas:
*my friend is dear
is nonsense because when the word dear is used
predicatively, it refers to expense.
The rather old-fashioned word wretched also follows this
pattern, so, e.g.:
The people were wretched
refers to their condition but
The wretched people forgot to lock the door
refers to the speaker's disapproval of them.
Some ambiguity may arise because, for example:
The car they rented to me was in wretched
condition
refers, presumably, with some disapproval to the poor
mechanical condition of the vehicle but
The people were in a wretched condition
refers to general misery.
The mild taboo adjectives bloody and bleeding are
confined to attributive use when they betoken disapproval so we
allow:
that bloody idiot
this bleeding photocopier
but the words are confined to meaning spattered with, covered
in blood or actually emitting blood when they are used
predicatively as in, e.g.:
the knife was bloody.
The much stronger taboo adjective fucking cannot be
used predicatively at all and retain its adjectival sense.
Oddly, the taboo adjectives shitty, crappy, piss-poor etc.
do not exhibit this pattern and can be used in both syntactical
forms with no change in meaning although attributive use is more
common.
Assumptions |
|
old friends |
When there is a choice of understanding inherent or non-inherent meaning, the hearer's assumption in English will vary depending on the adjective use.
- attributive adjectives
- will, as we saw above, be understood to apply non-inherently
whenever possible. So,
He's a light sleeper
She's a small shopkeeper
Mary's an old friend
He's my little brother
will all be understood that it is the sleep, the shop, the friendship and the age relationship which are light, small, old and little respectively, not the people. - predicative adjectives
- will be more rarely encountered in this respect but when they
are, the understanding will be the inherent meaning. So,
The businessman is big
My friend is old
The shopkeeper is small
My brother is little
will be understood to refer to the people, not the business, the friendship, the shop or the family relationship. - post-positioned adjectives
- often imply a non-inherent or temporary property (because they are also
attributive). For example:
The person responsible for the mess [only temporarily guilty in this instance]
The person responsible for the achievement [this particular achievement only]
The responsible authorities [a permanent, inherent characteristic]
A responsible person [a permanent, inherent characteristic]
There is a little more on this in the section of this guide on post-positioning of adjectives.
The summary so far and a check test |
Here is the summary of the four main divisions discussed so far.
If you would like to reassure yourself that you have the four
main divisions of adjectives clear in your mind, there is a short
test here to check your understanding.
Click here to do the test.
Adjective complementation |
The verb complement means to improve by adding extra
features of information and adjectives are prone to complementation by
their nature. For example, these expressions evince questions
requiring the adjective to be complemented in the absence of a context:
He is different (from what?)
She was reluctant (to do what?)
They are unsure (about what?)
We are uncertain (about what?)
and can be complemented to make things clear. For example:
He is different from his brother
She was reluctant to stay
They are unsure whether they can come
We are uncertain where to start
These examples show the four main ways in which
predicative
adjectives are usually complemented:
- With a prepositional phrase
That is open to doubt - With a to-infinitive
We are happy to help - With a nominalised clause
I'm not sure that is a good idea - With a wh-word
I am happiest when I am alone
As we shall see, attributive adjectives can also be complemented, but rather differently.
Complementation with predicative adjective uses |
|
The beach was free of other people |
Predicative adjective + prepositional phrase complementation |
|
She is unafraid of the animal |
Many adjectives, especially those derived from prepositional verbs,
are routinely complemented by prepositional phrases.
For example:
He's good at baseball | The web site is accessible to members only |
He is capable of anything | She was deaf to his requests |
I'm used to getting up early | Shut is synonymous with closed |
He's liable to a prison sentence / for the costs | We are anxious about the costs |
He's eligible for election | I'm familiar with the argument |
I'm due for a holiday | She is dependent on his good will |
I'm eager for the challenge | That comment is not consistent with our policies |
He's guilty of theft | This is free from additives |
That's inferior / superior to the old one | He did it heedless of the consequences |
The film is popular with children | She came in oblivious of the danger |
It isn't suitable for children | They are responsible for the damage |
In addition, the formulations of be + participle adjective + prepositional phrase form learnable chunks of language. Other, pseudo-copular, verbs such as seem, appear, become etc. also follow this pattern. | |
They appeared amazed at the weather | I'm not interested in grammar |
They grew vexed at their bad luck | I'm surprised at his indifference |
I became acquainted with the class | It is comprised of three sections |
I'm delighted with the place | She seemed delighted with her new job |
I'm opposed to hunting | The referee was prejudiced against the team |
I'm prepared for anything | He is not suited to this work |
She ended up dissatisfied with her life | The books slow fell into disorder |
In many cases, especially with verbs of
sensation or feelings, a parallel passive form using by exists. For example: surprised by, amazed by, vexed by, delighted by This produces parallel, pseudo-passive expressions with quite subtle variations in meaning (if a variation exists at all): I was surprised by his agreement vs. I was surprised at his agreement with no discernible change in meaning. She was delighted by the offer vs. She was delighted with the offer the first of which suggests she was delighted that she was offered something and the second of which implies that the offer itself was delightful to her. That is almost too subtle to mention. With others, only the passive by structure is possible: characterised by, affected by |
Some adjectives require complementation by a prepositional phrase. For example:
Allowed | Not allowed | ||
They are averse to risks That is synonymous with clean This is devoid of sense She is reliant on the money She is fond of animals |
They are prone to errors It is subject to approval That is tantamount to idiocy It is dependent on his approval It is bereft of logic |
They are averse That is synonymous This is devoid She is reliant She is fond |
They are prone The contract is subject That is tantamount It is dependent It is bereft |
And all these adjectives may only be used predicatively.
The adjectives content, indebted and answerable
are usually used with a prepositional phrase but may stand
alone. Other adjectives, such as indistinguishable,
different, identical and so on may stand alone and can be
used attributively but the
prepositional phrase is usually understood.
Occasionally, the complement may be ellipted and it then appears
that the adjective is being used without a complement but the
complement is understood and does not need, in these cases, to be
repeated.
There are nine prepositions which frequently occur in phrases complementing adjectives. Here are some examples of all of them:
|
|
Unfortunately, there are no rules for which preposition to use in the complementation of these adjectives so they are often best learned as language chunks in the same way that verbs with dependent prepositions are acquired. Some rules of thumb, however, given in the guide to prepositional phrases are:
- about and on frequently refer to subject matter (so one can have a talk about and a talk on a subject).
- of / out of and with frequently refer to ingredients or materials (cooked with, made of, made from, constructed from, manufactured with etc.)
- at is frequently found in connection with ability (good at, bad at etc.)
- from often implies protection (secure from, sheltered from, shield from, screen from etc.)
- with frequently collocates with emotions (angry with, unhappy with, delighted with, impatient with etc.) and can often be replaced with by when the adjective is participial (angered by, delighted by, annoyed by etc.)
This section is (mostly) included in the PDF document, linked at the end.
For a little more, see the guide to colligation (for that is what this concerns).
Predicative adjective + to-infinitive |
|
Pleased to meet you |
Many predicative adjectives can be followed by the to-infinitive. Examples of the form will suffice here:
The hotel was hard to find They were thrilled to discover how much They are certain to go He is not likely to win again |
Her excuse was difficult to believe I am apt to forget things these days The woman was slow to take offence He was quick to respond |
Again, a few adjectives actually require complementation by a to-infinitive.
For example:
The machine is inclined to be noisy
She is bound to come to your party
They were loath to complain too much
She is able to come
And, again, these adjectives may only be used predicatively.
The adjective able in this respect is often given the status of
a modal auxiliary verb but it is simply the adjective phrase requiring a
to-infinitive complement. Understanding it that way can
make it less of an issue.
Predicative adjective + nominalised clause |
|
I'm delighted that you came |
This structure is virtually confined to adjectives describing
reactions and feelings or opinions.
It is also slightly less common than the simpler adjective +
to-infinitive that is considered above.
These complements are
generally formed with a that-clause or a contingent clause. The
words that, if and whether can often omitted.
Examples are:
The crowd were thrilled (that) he scored I sure (that) she will know the answer They are certain (that) she will arrive She was unhappy (that) he didn't agree I am not sure (if) they will be here in time |
Her boss was incensed (that) she left early I am happy (that) you believe me The woman was amazed (that) he walked all the way He was content (that) the work would be done I am uncertain (whether) I can help |
Usually, this type of complementation is a clause in the indicative as above but three other clause types are possible although more formal, and rarer.
- subjunctive
- She is determined that he be here
I was unhappy that he be invited - putative should
- I am very sorry that he should feel that way
We were mortified that she should be upset - -ing form non-finite clause
- I am (un)happy living alone
They are content working together
They are busy getting things ready
They are uneasy walking in dark streets
We are (un)comfortable eating out in the summer
Only a few adjectives manage this trick.
Predicative adjective + wh-word (+ to-infinitive) |
|
I'm not sure which one to open |
A closely related form involves the use of a wh-clause as the nominalised clause. Here the wh-word cannot be omitted and the adjectives are confined to speculation and opinion, almost to (un)sure and (un) certain, in fact. For example:
I'm not sure where the road goes They were uncertain how many people would come I was sure when the time had come |
Her boss was unsure what was best to do I wasn't certain which job would suit me best She was certain which way to go |
A parallel form includes the to-infinitive. As for the use of a wh-clause above, the use is confined to expressions of certainty, most typically with (un)sure and (un) certain. For example:
I'm not sure where to go next They were uncertain how many to take I was sure when to move on She was doubtful which road to take |
Her boss was unsure what to do I wasn't certain which job to take She was certain whom to ask He was unable to say who did the work |
Complementation with attributive adjective uses |
|
Don't approach a thirsty lion near the camp |
Complementation with attributive adjectives is less common and
usually slightly more formal.
There are two main forms and both involve splitting the complementation
so the structure is:
determiner | adjective | noun | adverbial complement |
a | thirsty | lion | closely |
Attributive adjective + prepositional phrase |
|
It's a beautiful city at night |
Adjectives used attributively may take prepositional phrase complementation. For example:
This is a good spot for a picnic It's lovely weather for walking He's a good person in an emergency It's a less pleasant walk in the rain |
He is the best student at mathematics He has a similar job to mine She is a difficult person at work He is a more difficult person in the morning |
Attributive adjective + to-infinitive |
|
This is a hard place to get to |
Attributive adjectives may also take to-infinitive
complementation.
For
example:
This is a good place to stop It's a peaceful area to live in It's a cheaper car to run |
He is the best person to ask That's a silly reason to complain She is a better person to work with |
As the examples show, the formulation also allows comparative and superlative adjective forms to be used. That is less common, but possible, with predicative adjective use.
Ordinals |
|
The next person in the queue |
Ordinals are not really adjectives in many analyses but are
classified as a form of determiners. They do have some adjectival
characteristics, however, because they are used attributively and
predicatively to modify a noun.
With these pseudo adjectives, both a prepositional phrase and the to-infinitive
can form the complement of attributively used modifiers.
For example:
This is the first item on the list It's the last place to visit It's another question to ask |
He is the next man in the queue That's the fifth time in a month She is the first person to know |
Double adjectives and compounds |
Double adjectives and compound adjectives conform to the general
rules for adjectives concerning inherent and non-inherent properties,
stative and dynamic uses and much else.
Some compounds cannot be used predicatively, especially if they are
classifiers of some kind rather than epithets. This is noted
below.
Compound adjectives are formed in
many ways:
- object noun + participle verb -ing
(present-participle form)
heart-stopping
coffee-drinking
car-making
time-saving
in which it is the heart, coffee, car and time which form the object nouns of the verbs stop, drink, make and save.
Because these contain a classifying noun, they are rarely used predicatively so we do not encounter:
*The industry was car-making
*The idea was time saving
etc. - subject noun + verb -ed / -en (past-participle form)
handmade
machine cut
factory-produced
in which the subject nouns are hand, machine and factory. for the verbs make, cut and produce.
Because the second part of these can be considered adjectival participles, both predicative and attributive use is allowed:
The handmade luggage
The luggage appeared handmade - adverb + verb -ing
(present-participle form)
off-putting
self-starting
backsliding
outgoing
Some of these compounds, derived from multi-word verbs, are sometimes reversed so we can also have:
jumping-off
mopping-up
Whether these can also be used predicatively is irregular. We allow, for example:
She was very outgoing
I found the food offputting
but we do not usually allow predicative use with other adjectives derived from multi-word verbs:
*The point was jumping off - adverb + verb -ed / -en (past-participle form)
well-known
densely-forested
old-fashioned
ready-made
Some of these compounds, derived from multi-word verbs, are sometimes reversed so we can also have:
jumped-up
broken-down
As with the last sort, we allow predicative use with many of these but usually not with those formed from multi-word verbs:
The professor was well known
The house appeared old fashioned
*The woman was jumped up - noun + adjective
travelsick
bone idle
duty free
olive green
ice-cold
Predicative and attributive use is allowed with most of these because the second element is an adjective.
The beer was ice cold
The child seems bone idle - adjective (or, more rarely, determiner) + noun
open-door
small-scale
last-moment
eleventh-hour
latter-day
Predicative use is very rarely allowed with these because the second element is a noun.
*Her policy was open door
*The solution is eleventh hour - adjective + adjective
Double adjectives combine rather than modifying (or being modified).
bittersweet / bitter-sweet
Franco-British
grey-green
brick-built
semi-literate
Sino-Russian
The first part of such compounds can contain a derived adjective which cannot usually stand alone.
These double adjectives can usually be used both attributively and predicatively:
The day was freezing cold
The weather was baking hot
but not when the adjective is a classifier
*The agreement was Franco-British.
We saw above that the a-series of adjectives may be used attributively when they form part of an adjective + adjective pairing as in, for example:
The half-afraid children
The wide-awake observer - adjective + past-participle (-ed / -en form)
blue-eyed
simple-minded
hard-bitten
soft- / hard-hearted
odd-shaped
ill-spoken
etc.
Again, because the second element is an adjectival participle, both predicative and attributive use is allowed. - adjective + participle verb (-ing)
(present-participle form)
quick thinking
slow-drying
fast-setting
easy-going
Again, because the second element is an adjectival participle, both predicative and attributive use is allowed. - determiner + noun
one-way
three-storey
four-year
three-minute
The nouns in these cases are singular in BrE, no matter the nature of the determiner.
Predicative use is rare because the second element is a noun but possible in, for example:
The street was one way
but the attributive use is usually preferred or required. - determiner + verb -ed / -en (past-participle form)
many-sided
two-faced
double-edged
little-known
Again, because the second element is an adjectival participle, both predicative and attributive use is allowed. - noun + noun
These are quite rare compounds and usually classifiers. They are sometimes bahuvrihi compounds, making the adjective from a particular characteristic of something. For more, see the guide to compounding, linked below.
hunchback
featherweight
Because both elements are nouns, predicative use is forbidden:
*The boxer was featherweight
A trope much used by TV and radio commentators is to double an
adjective for effect so we get, for example:
It's a tricky, tricky
course
She ran
a hard, hard race
and so on. The use is, however,
usually informal and avoided in
writing except of the most casual type.
It does, nevertheless occur as a literary device in expressions
such as the cold, cold sea and in this case it is a simple emphasising tactic.
Technically, incidentally, it is known as epizeuxis
(/ˌɛpɪˈzjuːksɪs/).
Double adjectives, as opposed to compounds, are only of type 7. (adjective + adjective) and are formed of two adjectives combining their senses to make a third meaning. It can be argued that the first adjective is actually operating adverbially in these cases because it serves to modify the second adjective (a job usually confined to adverbs).
Because English is right headed (or head final), the right-hand word usually determines
meaning and word class. In all the examples, the right-hand
part is an adjective (or a participle acting as one) so they are
adjectives. So, for example, the compound adjective
quick-tempered refers to the temper and slow-flowing
refers to the rate of flow.
(Occasionally, but quite rarely, the right-headed rule is broken and the
combination of an adjective and a noun or a noun and a noun results in a
compound adjective. For example,
The place has old-world charm
It's a road-safety problem)
Hyphenation and comma use |
Hyphenation
To hyphenate or not is often at the whim of the writer in English and opinions will differ, but there are some rules of thumb, however the adjectives are formed.
- Attributive double or compound adjectives are always hyphenated
or written as one word. But when they are not considered a
single concept, the two adjectives are separated by a comma.
For example:
the wooden-hulled boat (in which wooden only applies to the hull, not the boat)
the green-shuttered house (in which the house has green shutters)
the green, shuttered house (in which the house is green and closed up)
the grey-green cliff (in which the cliff is neither grey nor green but a mix of the colours)
an open-minded person (in which the adjective is a single concept meaning something like tolerant)
an English-speaking country (in which English is spoken)
an English, speaking clock (in which the clock speaks and is English in origin)
an in-house project
an out-of-school activity
a breath-taking idea - When used predicatively, hyphenation is often optional, usually
avoided and
sometimes unusual. For example:
The house was red roofed
The boat was wooden hulled
She is quite open minded
Britain is mostly English speaking - Compound adjectives containing a noun and a participle verb form
are always hyphenated or, when very familiar, written as one word, when attributively used. For example:
He's a world-renowned scientist
That's an oceangoing liner - Compound adjectives formed with a noun + an adjective or an
adjective + a noun behave similarly:
She's a nationwide favourite
It's a world-famous event
This is a car-free zone
We made a last-minute decision
It was a first-order problem - Hyphenation affects meaning so, for example, there is a
difference in significance between:
It's a small-group tour
(meaning a tour in a small group) and
It's a small, group tour
(meaning a small tour in a group of unknown size) - Some well-established compound adjectives are almost always
hyphenated in both predicative and attributive uses.
Occasionally, a compound has become so common that it can be written
as a single word (but automatic spell-checkers will differ).
For example:
The idea was breathtaking
The children were spellbound
the inbound ferry
an open-door policy
The technology is cutting-edge
The food is ready-to-eat
The coat was bought off-the-peg
but even the hyphenated ones frequently appear without the hyphen or as one word.
Commas
- Commas are often optional but required when there is possible ambiguity. For
example:
It's a large house plant
is unlikely to be misunderstood as a plant only for use in large houses but to avoid any ambiguity, it can be written as
It's a large, house plant
Compare:
It's a small garden plant
in which there is ambiguity which can be eradicated by punctuating it as
It's a small, garden plant
or
It's a small-garden plant
When no ambiguity is likely the commas are often omitted although inserting them is conventional:
She's a wonderful(,) inspiring teacher
It's an expensive(,) efficient machine - Commas are not used if the adjectives do not both, or
all, modify the noun directly and independently. We
have commas in, for example:
He played his final, triumphant concert in London
because we know that both final and triumphant apply equally to the noun concert. It can be clumsily rephrased as:
It was his final concert and it was triumphant.
However, if we consider:
It was his final solo concert
we have a different situation because the adjective final now modifies solo concert, not just concert and the comma is omitted to show this. We know it was not his final concert but it was his final solo concert.
We can have the situation when two adjectives are used which both apply to the modified noun but the third does not. So, for example, we might see:
It was his final, triumphant solo concert
and in this case, final and triumphant apply to solo concert but concert is only modified directly by the adjective solo. The words final and triumphant are separated by commas but no comma separates triumphant and solo, therefore.
This, as we shall see later, affects how coordinating conjunctions function with adjectives. More below. - When one of the adjectives is a classifier rather than
an epithet, no comma is required so we prefer:
It's an expensive Italian restaurant
and not
It's an expensive, Italian restaurant.
When both adjectives are epithets applying equally to the noun, comma use is conventional so we prefer:
It's a beautiful, expensive hotel
to
It's a beautiful expensive hotel
For the use of coordinating conjunctions with doubled adjectives, see below.
Markedness |
Consider these questions and why they sound somewhat odd. Then click here for an explanation.
- How young is Mary?
- How bad is the food in the restaurant?
- How impermanent is the ink?
- How small is the house?
- How incomprehensible was his talk?
- How short is the boy?
- How unfair was the pay rise?
- How dishonest was his excuse?
- How dim was the light?
The
explanation lies in the concept of markedness. Certain forms of
the adjectives are unmarked and carry no special sense so the questions
would normally, i.e., neutrally, be posed as
How old is Mary?
How good is the food?
How permanent is the ink?
and so on.
When we pose questions such as
How short is the journey?
we are assuming a priori that the journey is short.
If, on the other hand, we ask:
How long is the journey?
we are making no assumptions either way.
If, likewise, we ask:
How young is Mary?
we are making the assumption that she is young.
Even when we know the answer, we prefer the unmarked form so we still
ask, e.g.:
How old is your puppy?
even though the noun puppy clearly refers to a young dog.
In English, many adjective pairs come as a marked and unmarked forms. Like this:
Unmarked form | Marked form |
old good permanent large comprehensible tall fair honest long bright safe |
young bad temporary small incomprehensible short unfair dishonest short dim dangerous |
Any form which has a negative prefix or suffix will usually be the marked form. So all of these are marked: impatient, unpleasant, displeasing, hopeless. So the usual question will be:
How hopeful is he feeling?
not
How hopeless is he feeling?
etc.
Markedness also applies to nouns and to some extent determines the
adjective that it is appropriate to use with them.
So, while it is in order to have, for example:
a female dog
a female actor
a female pig
a male nurse
a useful kitchenette
a cute kitten
etc.
it is either less common, doubtful or simply wrong to have:
*a female bitch
*a male sow
?a female nurse
?a huge kitchenette
*an old kitten
etc.
The fact that the language is sexist in this respect may be regrettable
but happens to be historically determined. Nouns marked for sex
are, it is true, slowly disappearing from the language but they persist
in, e.g., names for animals (lioness, hen, bull, gander etc.)
and in some titles (duke, duchess, king, queen etc.).
How unsafe is it to
assume that this will happen the same way in your learners' languages?
Very.
For more on markedness, see the guide linked in the list of related guides at the end.
Proleptic uses of adjectives |
|
hammer it repeatedly hammer it flat |
Proleptic means, roughly speaking, 'anticipatory' and this use allows an adjective where English users would normally expect an adverb because, on the face of things, the word is used to modify a verb rather than a noun phrase. Proleptic use implies that we are considering the end effect, not the current action.
In the example above, we have both uses:
Hammer it repeatedly
is the 'normal' use of a verb post-modified by an adverbial of some sort
(in this case, the adverb repeatedly) and we can also have,
for example:
Play it loudly
Cook it until done
Do it quickly but carefully
Roll it evenly
and all the adverbials in black refer
to the verb phrase.
However, with
Hammer it flat
we have the verb phrase followed by the simple adjective and we can also
have, for example:
Make it wet
Play it loud
Pull it straight
Roll it smooth
Pull it tight
all of which appear to be 'wrong' because we seem to be using an
adjective to modify a verb and, in English, that is not permitted.
They are, however, perfectly acceptable.
What is happening here is that we are anticipating the condition of the
object itself rather than referring to the way the action should be
carried out so we are modifying the noun or pronoun, not the verb, and
that is the central role of adjectives, of course.
The distinction is clear with the word different(ly) in,
e.g.:
Can we make it different?
vs.:
Can we make it differently?
In the first, the adjective modifies the pronoun and suggests that the
result of making would be different. In the
second, the adverb modifies the verb and suggests that the
manner of making would be different.
Adjectives derived from nouns and adjectives acting as nouns |
Adjectives derived from nouns are called denominal adjectives
and are usually classifiers.
Adjectives acting as nouns are called nominal adjectives.
Denominal adjectives |
|
concrete blocks |
There are four issues to consider with adjectives derived from (or converted from) nouns:
- Some denominal adjectives, often applying to particular
professions or services, can only be used attributively so we
have, e.g.:
the civil law (not *the law is civil)
a law practice (not *the practice is law)
an emergency service (not *the service is emergency)
a medical school (not *the school is medical)
etc. - A few, often referring to materials, such as concrete,
can occur in both positions, so we can have:
a concrete wall
a wooden house
a silk shirt
etc.
and, less commonly but acceptably:
the wall is concrete
the house is wooden
the shirt is silk - Denominal adjectives are often defined as invariable because
some can be used both attributively and predicatively (i.e., they act
like 'normal' adjectives) but they cannot be used comparatively or
superlatively. This is because they have more in common with
classifiers (see below) than with true adjectives or epithets.
We can have, therefore:
the tin roof
and
the roof is tin
but not
*the tinnest roof
or
*the roof is less tin - Some adjectives can be derived from the nouns contained in a
limited range of prepositional phrases
So we get, for example:
the chair at the end → the end chair
the flight from London → the London flight
the office in the corner → the corner office
the house on the end → the end house
the train to Margate → the Margate train
but this trick is only available:- if the state is permanent and inherent rather than temporary
and non-inherent so we allow the expressions above, but not, for
example:
the woman at the end of the queue → *the end woman
the pen on the table → *the table pen
because those are temporary positions referring to the relationship between two nouns rather than an attribute of the noun itself. - if we use a limited range of central prepositional phrase
heads which are only formed from at, from, in, on and to.
We allow the examples above but not, therefore:
the chair by the door → *the door chair
the door behind the stairs → *the stairs door
the house next to the station → *the station house - if we use the preposition of as part of a genitive
construction so we can also allow:
the policy of the company → the company policy
the logo of the website → the website logo
(However, in these cases the genitive 's structure is often preferred as in:
the company's policy
the website's logo.)
- if the state is permanent and inherent rather than temporary
and non-inherent so we allow the expressions above, but not, for
example:
It is often tempting to imagine that something like a crime novel
is an example of a noun becoming an adjective. In fact, both
adjectives proper and nouns can pre-modify
nouns without a magical change in word class. The use of a noun to
modify another is usually referred to as a noun adjunct.
Compare these:
Set 1 | Set 2 |
the village pump | a remote village |
a garden path | a high wall |
a love song | a touching song |
winter storms | freezing weather |
Set 1 comprises nouns used as modifiers of other nouns. Set 2 comprises adjectives modifying nouns. How do you tell?
Think for a minute and then click here.
With Set 1 we can rephrase all four like this:
the village pump | the pump in / of the village |
a garden path | a path in a garden |
a love song | a song about love |
winter storms | storms (typical) of winter |
It is not possible to do that with Set 2 because we aren't dealing with noun modifiers but true adjectives. What we can do is make them predicative and modify them, like this:
a remote village | the village is (very) remote |
a high wall | the wall is (quite) high |
a touching song | the song is (deeply) touching |
freezing weather | the weather is (really) freezing |
And that's something you can't do with modifying nouns. So,
predicative uses with copular verbs are unacceptable:
*The pump looks somewhat village
*The path is extremely garden
*The song sounds a bit love
*The storms appear very winter
Nominal adjectives |
|
the old and the young |
Nominal adjectives are often described as nominalised adjectives to
refer to the process of conversion from adjective to noun.
The terms are synonymous.
There are some points to consider with nominal adjectives and concord is
somewhat unpredictable (or, at least, often non-intuitive):
- Formality:
When adjectives act as nouns, they are often slightly formal. Examples include
The old need to be respected
The young are always too impetuous
The meek shall inherit the earth
Only the foolish would do such a thing
The wise would never contemplate it
The unmarried often have more to worry about
That's OK for the well paid but what about the underpaid?
etc.
Concord:
All of the above are plural in terms of concord with the verb because the nominalised adjectives represent a group or collective. We cannot have, for example:
*the young is
*the old is
etc. - Singular nouns:
A small class of adjectives can form singular nouns. Examples include:
The accused stands before the court (also plural with no plural marking)
The deceased was known to us all (also plural with no plural marking)
He risked voting for an unknown (never (?) plural)
She is the first to arrive and the last to leave (never plural)
etc.
Concord:
is irregular and semantically based as the examples show. - Philosophies:
A considerable group of nouns have been formed by simple conversion from adjectives and they include those referring to adherents of philosophical, religious or political principles. For example:
Catholic, Protestant, red, green, blue, conservative, liberal
and so on. Many are capitalised conventionally.
Concord:
These may all be pluralised in the normal way with concord following predictable patterns. - Nationalities:
A significant sub-class of these adjectives are the nouns for nationality derived from them. The technical term for these is demonyms, incidentally.
the French
the English
the Dutch
the Japanese
etc.
but many nationalities are referred to by plural nouns
the Germans
the Greeks
the Americans
etc.
The system is irregular but the majority fall into the first category.
Concord:
Whether plural in form or not, all these nouns are considered plural and concord demands a plural verb form. - Modification:
English allows adjectives to act as nouns (with the definite article usually) as we saw above and modification is possible as in, e.g.:
the filthy rich
the very wise
the extremely ill
the perfidious English
the clinically vulnerable
etc.
These are generally attributive in terms of word order because attempts to use them predicatively may result in, e.g.
the rich are filthy
which is unlikely to be true and not at all what is meant.
Concord:
Again, the nominalised adjectives represent a group or collective so all these are plural in terms of concord. - Abstractions:
Abstract concepts can also be nominalised from the parallel adjective so we see, for example:
She went from the sublime to the ridiculous
Think the unthinkable
The worst is yet to come
Hope for the best
He came away with a silver although he was hoping for a gold
The latest is that the government might fall
Concord:
Such concepts are generally uncountable and therefore require a singular verb form. - Restrictions:
Adjectives which are only used predicatively, such as the a-series, and adjectives which are dynamic in use do not form nouns. We cannot derive
*the aware
from
they are aware
or
*the rude
from
the customers were being rude - Verbless clauses:
Adjectives can also form what is known as a verbless clause. What happens in this case is that the full form of a subordinate clause is reduced to the adjective or adjective phrase alone so we can allow, for example:
Unhappy, she left the meeting early
which is the equivalent of:
(As / Because) she was unhappy, she left the meeting early
or
Old and battered, the car had to be replaced
which is the equivalent of:
Because the car was old and battered, it had to be replaced
or
The car was old and battered and had to be replaced
or
The car, which was old and battered, had to be replaced - Ellipsis of the noun:
It is common for the adjective to be left to stand for a noun phrase with the noun ellipted as in, for example:
You take the high road and I'll take the low
where the repetition of the noun has been avoided for stylistic reasons.
This is particularly common with superlative forms as in:
Give me the smallest
She avoided buying the most expensive
In these cases, we are not dealing with a case of nominalisation of the adjective. This is simple ellipsis and speakers often employ the pro-form one(s) in such clauses, retaining the adjective:
Give me the smallest one
She avoided buying the most expensive ones
Concord:
Because we are ellipting the noun altogether, what remains can be considered plural or singular and concord follows predictable patterns so we may have both:
The cheapest were actually nicer
and
The cheapest was actually nicer
depending on what form of the noun is ellipted.
Post-positioned attributive adjectives |
Attributive adjectives in English usually come before the noun but there are exceptions (called postpositive, post-positioned or postposed adjectives). Even when an adjective directly follows the noun, it is still an attributive use because there is no connecting verb to link the ideas.
Post-positioned adjective or relative pronoun clause? |
In many cases, an alternative analysis of post-positioned
adjectives is to see them as reduced relative pronoun clauses.
In some analyses, relative pronoun clauses are referred to as
adjective clauses because they serve to modify nouns. So, for
example:
The people responsible
can be rephrased as:
The people who were responsible.
Reduced relative clauses, as you may know, can be defining or
non-defining and can look to a casual eye as if they contained post-positioned
adjective phrases. For example, the following can be
rephrased with the omission of both the relative pronoun and the
verb be.
Relative clause sentence | → | Reduced form omitting pronoun and be | |
1 | The customers who were unhappy with the work complained | → | The customers unhappy with the work complained |
2 | The customers, who were unhappy with the work, complained | → | The customers, unhappy with the work, complained |
3 | The old machines which were beyond repair were discarded | → | The old machines beyond repair were discarded |
4 | The old machines, which were beyond repair, were discarded | → | The old machines, beyond repair, were discarded |
In examples 1 and 3 we have defining (also called restrictive or
identifying) relative clauses and examples 2 and 4 are of
non-defining (also called non-restrictive or non-identifying)
relative clauses). The punctuation and the tone units which
would be apparent in spoken language are parallel in both forms.
The meaning of sentences 1 and 3 is that only the customers who were
unhappy complained (and other customers were satisfied) and only the
machines beyond repair were discarded (while others were retained).
The meaning of sentences 2 and 4 is that all the
customers complained because they were unhappy with the work and
all the machines were discarded because they were
beyond repair.
It is legitimate to see the formulations in the right-hand column
above as examples of post-positioned adjectives but the line taken
here is that they are not and they are reduced relative clauses.
Relative clauses are sometimes called adjectival clauses in the
analysis of English grammar and that is a legitimate point of view
because they act to modify the nouns in all cases. In fact,
all adjectives, post-positioned or not, can be replaced by relative clauses although the
outcome is often rather clumsy so we can have, e.g.:
The unhappy boy → The boy who was
unhappy
The expensive cars → The cars which were expensive
and so on.
Twelve cases of post-positioned adjectives |
Normally, post-positioned adjectives can be modified in the usual
way with adverbs and periphrastic forms so we can have, for example:
The people most responsible
etc.
Where that is or is not the case is noted in this section.
Something unusual |
After the pronoun set of some-, any-, every- and no-
which end in -one, -thing and -body
we always have postposed adjectives. So we have
anything useful
somebody nice
anyone present
etc. and not:
*Have you useful anything?
*Is present anyone?
Modification is allowed so we can encounter:
anything very useful
something more resilient
etc.
Only permanent states may be referred to
in this way. We allow, for example:
Someone strange came to ask for you
but not:
*Someone exhausted came to ask for you
because
exhausted is not a permanent state.
The adverb else also post-modifies this series of
pronouns and follows this pattern, for example:
Is anything else broken?
She made everyone else unhappy
Those involved in the race |
The same phenomenon occurs with the demonstrative pronoun,
those, e.g.
those accountable
not
*accountable those
but not with
that, this or these, which
can also be demonstrative pronouns:
*that reasonable
*this responsible
*these accountable
Modification is sometimes limited but
those most closely involved
those very clearly visible
are both possible.
The man asleep in the chair |
We saw above that the a-series of adjectives cannot
be used attributively but post-position with attributive use is
possible in some cases, so while we do not allow:
*The asleep people were suddenly woken
we do allow:
The people asleep were suddenly woken.
Again, this is also analysable as a reduced relative clause
standing in for:
The people who were asleep were suddenly woken.
A tree taller than that |
When an adjective forms part of a post-modified adjective
phrase, it is routinely post-positional so we get, e.g.:
We needed a box that big to hold all the toys
Can we hire a car bigger than this?
It was a ladder long enough to reach the roof
The passengers happy to take a later
flight were compensated
The parent anxious to help the school were invited to the
meeting
Modification is allowable so we may encounter:
a box much bigger
a ladder almost long enough
a car a little bigger
The passengers most happy
The parent least anxious
etc.
but these sorts of phrases can also be interpreted as reduced
relative clauses, the full forms of which would be:
We needed a box which was that big to hold all the toys
Can we hire a car which is bigger than this?
It was a ladder which was long enough to reach the roof
The passengers who were happy to take a later flight were
compensated
The parent who were anxious to help the school were invited
to the meeting
An oddity is that if we have differences of sex in the
noun, we must put the adjective in the
post-modifying position.
- A happier woman than her wouldn't have minded.
- A woman happier than her wouldn't have minded.
- A man happier than her wouldn't have minded
- *A happier man than her wouldn't have minded.
The chair elect |
There are two common adjectives which usually follow the
noun. E.g.
the chairperson
elect
the holiday proper
A longer list would include adjectives in or translated from
Latin and other languages (called calques) which have, or allow, noun-adjective
ordering:
agent provocateur, battle royal, femme fatale, persona non grata, pound sterling, proof positive,
spaghetti bolognese, sum total, time immemorial, times past,
pastures new, professor emeritus, postmaster general, poet laureate, prince
regent, proof positive, sergeant major, truth pure and simple, devil incarnate and more.
Pluralisation is sometimes an issue because, logically, the
plural belongs with the noun the adjective is modifying so we
should have:
agents provocateur, battles royal, chairpersons /
presidents etc. elect, holidays proper, proofs positive,
postmasters general, poets laureate, devils incarnate
and so on. However, some of these terms are now so
embedded in the language that they are treated as compound nouns
and the second element carries the plural marker so we get,
therefore:
sum totals, postmaster
generals, poet laureates, sergeant majors
etc.
Incidentally, the plural of
persona non grata is either
personae or personas non grata.
Often, this is a matter of personal taste and personal pedantry
levels.
None of these forms is subject to modification
so we do not allow:
*the chairman very elect
*the holiday most proper
*the battle extremely royal
*pastures excitingly new
etc.
Some compounds (often old-fashioned or rare ones) also show
this word order. E.g.
court martial
heir apparent
attorney general
princess royal
Some of these forms are borrowings from French in which the
French word order is retained. Others are produced by
restaurants wishing to appear sophisticated such as:
apple charlotte
peach Melba
pommes grecques
and so on.
Again, none is modifiable and pluralisation is often illogically
on the adjective so we encounter, for example, both courts
martial and court martials (although the former is
the only technically correct term).
The police officer involved |
A few adjectives can vary in meaning depending on whether they precede or follow the noun:
- The people
involved in the accident
refers to fact that the people were in the accident, but
It was an involved explanation for the accident
refers to the fact that the explanation was complex. - The police
officer concerned took statements from everyone
refers to the police officer who was dealing with the accident, but
The concerned police officer took statements from everyone
refers to the fact that the police officer was worried in some way. - The students
present were given their feedback
refers only to the students who were there, but
The present students were given their feedback
refers to everyone who was currently a student. - The course
proper starts on Thursday
refers to the course accurately described
It's a proper course
refers to the course being well designed and fit for its purpose. - I have spent my whole
life here
means all my life, but
The bird swallowed its prey whole
means in one piece.
Where the adjective is gradable,
modification is allowed but the adjectives present, whole and
proper are not usually gradable. Otherwise, we can
encounter:
The people closely involved in the accident
It was an extremely involved explanation
The police officer mostly concerned
The very concerned police officer
It may be helpful to consider some of these as examples of
reduced relative clauses
the people [who were] involved
the police officer [who was] concerned
the students [who were] present
etc.
In the second case, however, ambiguity is created concerning
whether the police officer was doing his/her job or whether the
police officer was worried about something (or, just possibly,
both).
Because these forms have certain similarities to relative clause
structures, the sense of defining (i.e., restrictive) and
non-defining (i.e., non-restrictive) uses is maintained.
So, for example:
The neighbours concerned complained
implies that there were other neighbours who were not concerned, who
did not complain but
The concerned neighbours complained
implies that all the neighbours were concerned and they all
complained.
Temporary and permanent conditions |
In some related cases, placing the adjective before the noun refers to a temporary condition but placing it after the noun refers to a permanent state (i.e., non-inherent and inherent properties, respectively). For example:
- The available money
[all of it] is adequate
vs.
The money available now [some of it] is adequate - The visible galaxies
[all of them]
vs.
The galaxies visible tonight [some of them] - We need a responsible person
to do this
[a permanent characteristic of the person]
vs.
This is the person responsible for doing this [a temporary duty or guilt] - The money stolen
[a temporary attribute of this money which may be
recoverable]
vs.
The stolen money [a permanent attribute of the money] - The people guilty
[of a specific crime]
vs.
The guilty people [inherently so]
Modification is allowed so, for example, we
can have:
The money easily available
The galaxies obviously visible
We need a reliably responsible person
The money recently stolen
The obviously guilty people
etc.
In the last two examples, one can take the view that these
are simply reduced relative clauses:
The money which was stolen
The people who were guilty
The choice of predicative or attributive use of an adjective is
often reliant on semantic rather than structural considerations
concerning the permanence or otherwise of the attribute. The
case usually, but not always, concerns the use of -ed / -en
or -ing participial adjectives.
For example, we can allow:
The boss was astonished
but do not allow:
*She was an astonished boss
because one cannot be permanently astonished.
Equally, while:
He accepted the money with a sneering smile
is acceptable,
*He was a sneering man
is not because the first refers to a temporary condition and
the second cannot refer to a permanent state.
Non-participial adjectives also sometimes show this phenomenon so
while:
It was a sarcastic comment
is fully acceptable,
?He was a sarcastic man
is, at least, unusual, because we do not normally consider
people as being permanently sarcastic.
The woman arrested |
Adjectives formed from verbs are sometimes found in
post-position. We saw this with concerned and involved above where the meaning of the adjective is
altered depending on whether it precedes or follows the noun.
Other verbal adjectives also follow this pattern with no change
in meaning and cannot come before the noun. For example:
The people arrested were taken to the police station
(Not: *The arrested people)
The customers objecting to the increase all wrote to the
manager
(Not: *The objecting customers)
These adjectives are limited in terms of modifiability so we
cannot have:
*The people very arrested
or
*The customers extremely objecting
although
The people recently arrested
and
The people strongly objecting
are possible.
It is here more arguable that this phenomenon is a
reduced relative clause as both the examples can be re-expressed
conventionally as:
The people who were arrested were taken to the police
station
The customers who were objecting to the increase all wrote
to the manager
The silliest idea imaginable |
Adjectives formed with -ible and -able
suffixes (also often from verbs) show a strong tendency to be
post-positional. For example:
The only money attainable
The worst idea possible
The silliest suggestion imaginable
etc., although the normal positioning is also common.
These adjectives are, when gradable, modifiable but modification
is rare.
Measures |
Adjectives related to measurement always take post-position,
so, for example:
It's two feet long
It's five metres square
The play is an hour long
The road is 15 feet wide
The water was three metres deep
The wall was only a foot high
The child is only 5 years old but already 3 feet tall
etc.
Oddly, no adjective in English exists for
weight in
this way so we resort to the prepositional phrase, e.g.:
It's four tonnes in weight
not, as it would be in many languages:
*It's four tonnes heavy
Measurement adjectives are not modifiable so we do not
allow:
*The road is fifteen feet very wide
*The wall is a foot slightly high
Three odd ones |
Three odd adjectives – aplenty, akimbo and galore –
always follow the noun attributively. (The last, perhaps, because that's
the conventional ordering in Irish, whence the word comes and
where it is, incidentally, an adverbial prepositional phrase.)
None can be used predicatively:
We have food aplenty and drink galore
*The food is aplenty and the drink is galore
He stood with arms akimbo
*His
arms were akimbo
None of these adjectives is modifiable with very but they can, rarely, be modified by
intensifying adverbs so we may encounter:
?We had drink absolutely galore
but many would not accept that and no modification of
akimbo
or aplenty
is allowed.
There is some lexicographical disagreement with these words.
Oxford dictionaries once classified all of them as adverbs
rather than adjectives but have since decided that at least aplenty and
galore are adjectives. Cambridge
dictionaries describe them as adjectives as does Merriam-Webster
(although there's a bit of hedging there with akimbo
described as either an adjective or an adverb). The word
aplenty
has also (not on this site) been described as a post-positioned
quantifying determiner which makes two if we include enough
in that category.
It is difficult to see how any of these can usefully be
described as adverbs because no substitute adverb is usually
available so we do not allow:
*He greeted me with arms openly
*We had food plentifully
*They had drink abundantly
We can, however, replace them with adjectives and allow:
He greeted me with open arms
We had copious food
They had abundant drink
so, here, we'll stick with them being adjectives but that's not
a certain categorisation because they are clearly sometimes
adverbial in nature so they can be replaced with adverbial
phrases as in:
He stood with arms at his side
We had food in large quantities
They had drink in great amounts
so, in these senses, the words are adverbial even if they
aren't really adverbs.
above and below |
One pair of adjectives, below and above, also follow the noun but a
simpler analysis is to refer to this as a reduced relative
clause so, e.g.:
The discussion below
The sentence above
are abbreviated versions of
The discussion which follows below
The sentence which appears above
in which the words are adverbs (one of their two usual
grammatical functions).
The adjective below is almost always post-positioned
but, non-intuitively, above appears in both forms so we
allow
The sentence below
The sentence above
and
The above sentence
but not
*The below sentence.
The adjectives are modifiable with some adverbs so we allow,
e.g.:
The paragraph immediately above
The sentence some way below
etc.
Modification with too, enough and so |
|
too heavy or not heavy enough |
These modifiers of adjectives cause trouble because they are quite irregular. This is how they work:
- Predicative use only
When these modifiers are used, the adjective they modify can only be used predicatively.
The modifier enough follows the adjective but so and too precede it.
We can have
If the learners are hardworking enough, they will pass
that's a normal predicative use
but when used attributively, it's not possible to include enough. You can't have
*Hardworking enough learners will pass
but deleting the modifier makes an acceptable sentence.
Similarly, we can allow:
The man was so stupid he didn't understand a simple instruction
but not the attributive use as in
*The so stupid man didn't understand a simple instruction
or
The game was too easy
but not
*It was a too easy game - The a-series of adjectives are not usually modified
with too, enough and so. Therefore,
*She is asleep enough
*The boat was so afloat
or
*They are too alone
are not acceptable, although
She is too ashamed to speak
and
He was too afraid to ask
are fine.
The adverb modifier too can also be used in some varieties as a synonym of very as in, e.g.:
That was too kind of you
She doesn't feel too well
The modifier so is usable with some in the a-series so we can have
She is so afraid of the dentist that she won't go
but this is not reliable as, e.g.:
*They are so asleep
is not acceptable.
The preferred (and safest) modifier with the a-series is either very much as in, e.g.:
I am very much afraid that is not going to be possible
or a modifier adverb unique to the word such as:
She is sound asleep
They are wide awake
I was fast asleep
The ship was hard aground
For considerations of modification of adjectives with fairly, pretty, rather and quite, refer to the guide to adverb modifiers linked in the list of related guides at the end.
Epithets and classifiers |
When nouns are used adjectivally, they are normally classifiers. Classifiers are also sometimes called noun adjuncts. The difference between a classifier and an adjective proper (an epithet) is that classifiers:
- can't normally be modified with intensifiers like very or absolutely
- can't be modified with so, too and enough
- do not have comparative or superlative forms
So, we can't have,
e.g.
*a very village pump
*an extremely brick wall
*a so butterfly collection
*a wooden enough house
*the bricker house
*the sportsest car
and so
on.
There's a bit more about this in
the guide to modification linked in the list at the end.
There are some issues with the distinctions between classifiers
and epithets because the categories are not fully mutually exclusive
and watertight.
It is also the case that a noun adjunct remains a noun, whatever its
function, and reclassifying it as an adjective is simply muddying
the water.
Denominal adjectives vs. classifiers |
|
concrete blocks |
We noted above under denominal adjectives, that a word such as
concrete can be used both
predicatively and attributively and this indicates that it is sometimes
difficult (but rarely necessary) to distinguish between a denominal
adjective and a noun modifier / adjunct or classifier.
Non-intuitively, a word like concrete can be used both
predicatively and attributively when it retains its core meaning, so
we can have both:
the floor is concrete
and
the concrete floor
but, if we use the term metaphorically, it acts like a true
epithet and we allow:
Give me a concrete example
but not
*The example was concrete.
Often, a simple test is to pose a
How question. We can ask, for
example:
How old is the car?
and hence
old qualifies as an adjective, but we cannot ask:
*How saloon is the car?
or
*How concrete is the floor?
because saloon
and concrete are classifiers, not adjectives.
For more, see the guide to classifiers, partitives and group
nouns, linked in the list at the end.
Adjectives as classifiers |
|
a junior school teacher |
Adjectives can also be classifiers but there is usually a change
in the intended meaning.
For example:
a junior officer
has the word junior acting as a simple adjective. We
can have more junior, very junior, most junior etc.,
but in
a junior school
the word is a classifier, categorising the school by the age of
its pupils and it makes no sense to refer to a more junior
school and so on.
There is some ambiguity in written language whether a word is
intended as an adjective or a classifier because:
a junior school teacher
could be interpreted as
a teacher at any type of school who is at the
beginning of a career and therefore junior to other teachers
or
a teacher who happens to work in a junior
school
In the former, the word is adjectival and in the latter it is a
classifier.
In spoken language, the stress will usually make things clear so we
can distinguish between:
a junior
school teacher (i.e., a
novice teacher with school classifying the noun teacher)
and
a junior school
teacher
(i.e., a teacher in a junior school with junior classifying
the noun school)
Equally, the words rural and suburban can perform both functions:
a very rural setting (adjective)
a rural issue (classifier)
a suburban house (classifier)
the position is too suburban (adjective)
The word urban is restricted to its use as a classifier.
Participles as classifiers |
|
a tiling job making a tiled floor |
Many adjectives are actually verb participles in disguise and act
quite normally as adjectives. For example:
a very boring landscape
an extremely frightened child
an educated teacher
a compelling film
and in these cases we can modify them and produce comparative or
superlative forms so they are adjectives. There is more,
below, on the formation, classification
and meaning of participle adjectives.
Participles can also be classifiers and come in two sorts.
In, for example:
a boring tool
printed matter
printing ink
a framed picture
typing paper
all the participles are classifiers.
Whether the participles are adjectives or classifiers, the meaning
distinction between the forms comes down to one of two factors:
- effecting or affected
- -ing participles refer to role of the noun in
effecting a process
a boring speaker
printing ink
cutting tool - -ed / -en participles refer to the noun
being affected by the action
a bored listener
printed paper
cut wood
- -ing participles refer to role of the noun in
effecting a process
- in progress or finished
- -ing participles refer to an action in progress
manufacturing industry
welding torch
a tiling job - -ed / -en participles refer to a finished action
a manufactured artefact
a welded pipe
a tiled floor
- -ing participles refer to an action in progress
Gradability |
Classifiers, as we saw, are normally ungradable. However, some central adjectives are also rarely made gradable and the normal way to analyse the issue is to identify three basic classes of ungradable adjectives:
- Those whose meaning is in some way absolute.
These include words such as ultimate, total, entire, unique, absolute, utter, perfect where it is logically impossible to conceive of a grade. Terms like *more unique, *very perfect and so on are, therefore, often considered wrong although you will find plenty of examples of their use: more average, less unique, most complete, more extreme, more total etc. Or even:
What one is prepared to accept is often a matter of formality and personal preference. - Words which refer to a specific on-off quality. These are
usually adjectives or near classifiers such as metal, pregnant, unlocked, French,
fatal, just
(in its meaning of fair)
etc. The reason these are not gradable is that one is either
pregnant or not, something is either metal or it isn't,
locked or
unlocked and a wound is either fatal or not (there's no intermediate stage). Again, this is often
a rule flouted in colloquial speech and terms such as She's very
French to refer to an attitude rather than a nationality are
common. We can also have less full, half empty
and so on but not *very empty although very full
is heard.
Other adjectives in this group refer to additives and include: additional, extra, supplementary, further, spare etc. which all have no intermediate meanings.
In the Daily Telegraph (a British national newspaper), we find, e.g.:
We're just very grateful that he's survived this incident because it could have turned out to be quite fatal
(The Daily Telegraph website)
Perhaps the speaker meant quite dangerous. - Words which in themselves include the concept of
very
or extremely. It is often averred (and it is often told to
learners) that some 'extreme' adjectives can only be
modified with words like utterly, completely, really, extremely,
exceptionally, awfully, exceedingly, especially, dreadfully,
extraordinarily, enormously, fantastically, vastly etc.
The commonest lists include items such as:
Gradable form Ungradable form hot boiling cold freezing beautiful stunning surprising amazing good wonderful bad awful rude obnoxious nice delicious
There are others which are not normally graded such as vital,
essential, crucial, key, indispensable etc. but which are often
made gradable in casual speech.
In particular, the intensifier pretty is often used with
extreme or ungradable adjectives so we often here:
That's pretty marvellous
The collection is pretty complete
and so on.
The other intensifiers which fall into this class and which have a
section to themselves in the guide to intensifying adverbs, linked
below, include rather, fairly and quite.
However, the rule is not fully reliable and one might hear or
read, for example:
That's very delicious
That's even more stunning
It's very awful
That's incredibly nice
etc. The last of these examples is a contested use of the
adverb incredibly which has come to mean, in common, casual
speech among some groups, something akin to very.
Such uses should be handled with care, however, because they are
idiomatic and unpredictable so, for example, few would accept:
?She's very wonderful
?That's a bit amazing
and these uses would certainly be deprecated in formal speech and
writing.
even more
If we insert even before more in comparative forms the modifier
can function to make ostensibly ungradable adjectives gradable.
For example:
My hotel room was luxurious but Susan's was
even more sumptuous
The costumes were stunning but the music was even more
astonishing
She is even more insufferable than her sister
and so on.
The inflected forms of the comparative are very doubtful with the
adverb even so many will not accept, for example:
?even awfuller
?even direr
?even dismaller
and would prefer the formulations with
even more ... .
There is a separate guide to gradability, which also includes consideration of adverbs, linked from the list of related guides at the end.
The constraint on gradability is much reduced when we use the
negative forms of as ... as or not as/so ... as
structures to make comparisons. We frequently encounter,
therefore, expressions such as:
It's not as unique as it was
The garden is now as perfect as it was before the storm
The verdict wasn't as just as he expected
Issues of gradability apply somewhat idiomatically to participial adjectives as we shall see.
Participle adjectives |
|
a sunken boat |
We can distinguish two types of participle adjectives in English, both of which can almost always be used attributively and predicatively.
- Adjectives formed from the present or progressive participle. For example:
- He was an interesting man
The outcome was very surprising
That's a fascinating result
They told a gripping tale
The present participle form is usually simply referred to as the -ing participle. - Adjectives formed from the past participle. For example:
- There was a broken window
in the first floor
The children were delighted to see her
She seemed uninterested in the result
The terrified people ran out into the street
The past participle form is often referred to as the -ed participle but, because many are irregular also as the -en participle (by analogy to, for example chosen, broken etc.). Here, we will call these participles the -ed / -en forms as we did above.
The general rule is that -ing adjectives refer to what a thing or a person is and -ed / -en adjectives refer to how someone feels.
We can refer to what something was (the flight was frightening) or to how someone felt (I was frightened).
The second issue with such adjectives is that they do, sometimes,
reflect the progressive vs. completed nature of the verbs
from which they are derived. For example:
The car was hit by the
falling tree
clearly expresses the fact that the tree was in motion but:
The car hit the
fallen tree
expresses the fact that the tree had fallen beforehand.
As we saw when discussing the role of participles as classifiers, -ing
participles refer to the action in progress, for example:
the building
works
and -ed / -en participles refer to the end product,
for example:
the built
environment
This is an important area because many languages do not form
adjectives in this way (or have other ways of deriving them from
verbs) and much confusion and bewilderment is caused.
The usual errors are misunderstanding what is being described so,
for example, saying
She is boring
instead of
She is bored
and so on, but there are other consequences of language differences
which result in errors such as
*They are very irritating me
*I am welcomed by her
etc.
Partly, the cause of difficulty is that English does not distinguish
morphologically or phonetically between a word acting as a verb and
one acting as an adjective. Both forms take either -ing
or -ed (or are irregular, usually in the same way).
Most languages do not have this ambiguity of form and the hearer /
reader can immediately recognise whether a word is adjectival or
verbal in use by the morphology or pronunciation, and usually both.
Taking the example above of the falling vs. the fallen tree,
other languages, while clearly deriving the adjectives from the verb
will distinguish the form so that it is unequivocally adjectival.
Frequently, languages also make the adjective agree both in number
and in gender with the noun they describe. Romance languages,
such as French and Spanish will have no exact equivalent at all of
the falling tree, preferring to say, roughly, the tree
which was falling:
el árbol que cae vs. el arbol caido (Spanish)
l'arbre qui tombe vs. l'arbre tombé (French)
Germanic languages do have the forms but they are clearly
distinguishable from the verb:
der fallende Baum vs. der gefallene Baum (German)
det fallande trädet vs. det fallna trädet (Swedish)
The same phenomenon of making the adjective form distinguishable
from the verb form occurs in most languages so the distinction
between:
the excited people
the people were excited
the exciting people
and
the people were exciting
is simpler to identify. So, for example, in Spanish, those
four phrases translate as:
la gente emocionadas
la gente estaba emocionada
la gente emocionante
la gente era emocionante
and in German as:
die aufgeregten Leute
Die Leute waren aufgeregt
die aufregenden Leute
Die Leute waren aufregend
in which there are clearly four distinct forms either of the
adjective distinguished from the participle or in the forms of the
verbs.
Problems with participial adjectives |
Here are some examples of the difficulties thrown up by the failure in English to distinguish between verbs and adjectives in the forms of words.
a drunken party | The past participle of drunk
is no longer drunken but the form is maintained in the
adjective. There are a few older English forms which survive as adjectives only and they include: drunken, sunken, shaven, shrunken, learned, blessed, beloved, crooked, dogged, ragged. For example: He shaved his head The man with the shaven head The boat has sunk The sunken boat etc. In the last six cases, learned, blessed, beloved, crooked, dogged, ragged, the adjective retains the earlier syllabic pronunciation of -ed as /lɜːnɪd/, /blesɪd/, /bɪ.ˈlʌ.vɪd/ /krʊkɪd/, /dɒɡɪd/ and /ræɡɪd/ rather than /lɜːnd/, /blest/, /bɪ.ˈlʌvd/, /krʊkt/, /dɒɡd/ and /ræɡd/ which are how the past participles of the verbs are pronounced. One oddity is the adjective aged which is pronounced /eɪdʒd/ when it refers to something which has matured or reached a certain age as in, e.g.: An aged wine is more acceptable and Aged 14 he left school but it retains the older pronunciation of /ˈeɪdʒɪd/ when it means elderly as in, e.g.: He had an aged servant or The dog was a little aged and short sighted. The older participle forms can only be used attributively. We cannot have *The woman was drunken *The boat was sunken etc. |
he was offended by my father | Is this a passive verb form or an
adjective? Can we say He was very offended by my father? The distinction is whether the clause answers the question Who offended him? [a passive use] or whether it answers the question How did he feel? [an adjectival use]. In the first case, the word is a passive participle: Q: Who offended him? A: He was offended by my father. In the second case, the word is an adjective: Q: Why did he walk out? A: Because he was very offended by my father. |
the manager was relieved | Meaning 1: he felt relief (relieved
is an adjective and we can use very before it) Meaning 2: the manager was replaced by someone else (relieved is the verb; it's not possible to insert very) |
she is calculating | Meaning 1: she is unsentimental and
cold-hearted (here the word calculating is an
adjective and can be modified conventionally) Meaning 2: she is using mathematics (here the word is a verb) |
the players were not downhearted | If this is a participle, what's the
present tense of the verb? (Answer: it is an 18th century figurative use derived from the Old English hiertan, meaning give heart to. The Modern English is hearten and thence we can derive heartened, a passive participle meaning encouraged.) |
the escaped leopard | This is a participle adjective but it
can't be used predicatively: *The leopard is escaped because it is intransitive so a passive verbal rather than adjectival use is disallowed. The subject of the verb is the leopard. |
she is very self-centred the extremely self-centred man |
This looks like an ordinary participle
adjective until we realise that there is no corresponding verb,
to self-centre. The same applies to some others such as talented, unconcerned, flabbergasted, unexpected, renowned etc. These are adjectives for the simple reason that we know that they can't be anything else because there is no verb. |
a barking dog a hunting dog |
This also appears to be participial
adjectives describing the dog but they cannot be
modified at all so: *A very barking dog *A very hunting dog are not possible. In the second case, the participle is acting as a classifier to categorise the type of dog so, while we can have: The dog is barking then we are still describing the dog in some way because: There is a barking dog in the area and A dog is barking nearby are functionally synonymous, but if we state that: The dog is hunting we are not classifying the dog but using the -ing form as a simple verb. The distinction is that a hunting dog refers to the permanent, inherent attribute of the dog but a barking dog refers to a temporary attribute. |
Participle adjective or verb? |
Judging whether a word is adjectival in nature or whether it is a
passive or progressive use of the verb is not always easy.
It is, nevertheless, quite important because other languages deal with
the issue very differently as we saw and that results in considerable
inter-language error.
The first question to ask is whether there actually is a verb to
which we can refer. Is the word derived from a Modern English verb
at all? An example of this quandary is the last one in the table
above.
If there isn't a verb, the word is acting adjectivally. So, for example,
The accusation was unfounded
is adjectival because there is no verb to unfound.
They are talented children
is also adjectival because there is no verb to talent and
He is a gifted pianist
is adjectival, too, although there is an unusual verb, gift,
which carries a different meaning.
When words are borrowed from other languages, they may or may not carry
their word-class membership with them. English is, however, adept
at making new words by conversion and affixation so we can find, for
example:
The expression is clichéd
but from which no verb to be found (to cliché does not exist).
Here, we have a formulation which simply depends on the assumption that
the ending on cliché will alert the reader / hearer to its adjectival
use.
Many compound adjectives work this way so we get, for example:
This is a fruit-based drink (with no verb to
fruit-base)
It's a mineral-derived oil (with no verb to
mineral-derive)
and this also works with the -ing adjectives as a test
so we have, for example:
a side-splitting performance (with no verb to
side-split)
a fact-finding mission (with no verb to fact-find)
The negative adjectives in particular are often derived from
positive versions which are also verbal so, for example, we can
have:
An expert was invited
which is simply a passive-clause construction using the verb
invite.
We can also use the participle as an attributive adjective and
have:
The invited expert was very useful
However,
The man was uninvited
cannot be a passive form because there is no verb uninvite
so we know it's an adjective. We can use the form in, e.g.:
The uninvited people were asked to leave
but it is purely adjectival.
There are plenty of these doubled forms in which the negative
participle is only adjectival although the positive adjective is
participial, forming passives in the usual way, and they include:
unabridged unadorned unaffected unaided unaltered unanswered unarmed unashamed unasked unassisted unbeaten unbent unbroken unchanged unchecked unclothed unconfined uncooked uncounted uncrowded undamaged undated undecided undeclared undefeated undefined undelivered |
undeserved undesired undetected undeterred undeveloped undigested undimmed undivided unearned unedited uneducated unemployed unequalled unexcited unexcused unexpected unexpired unexploded unexplored unfenced unfilled unfinished unfocused unforced unforeseen unfounded unhampered |
unharmed unhealed unheard unheated unheeded unhindered unhurried unhurt uninfected uninformed uninjured uninspired uninsured unintended uninvited unknown unlabelled unlamented unlearned unleavened unlicensed unlimited unlisted unloved unmanned unmarked unmarried |
unmatched unmerited unmixed unmodified unmoved unnamed unnamed unnoticed unobserved unoccupied unopened unpaid unplanned unpolluted unpredicted unprepared unprompted unproven unprovoked unpunished unrecorded unrelated unremarked unreported unresolved unrewarded unsaid |
unsalted unseen unsent unsettled unshaven unsigned unsold unsolved unspent unspoilt unspoken unstated untamed untaxed untested untold untouched untrained untreated untried untroubled unused unwanted unwashed unwearied unworn unworried |
Other negative participles with the prefix dis- suffer from
the reverse because there is often not a positive version of the
verb at all so the following are also only adjectival. So, for
example, while we can allow:
She was a disillusioned woman
we cannot allow:
*She was an illusioned woman
because there is no verb illusion.
Adjectives may be derived from verbs which carry clearly different
meanings from the resulting adjective.
For example,
a distinguished academic
contains an adjective derived from a verb but the verb has a
different sense (meaning recognise as different rather than
admire).
Equally, sometimes adjectives may be derived from meanings of verbs
which are no longer current so, while the verbs affect, appoint,
close, count, cover, figure, joint and lodge clearly
exist, the adjectives in this list to which they are seemingly
connected do not carry anything like the same senses.
disaffected disappointed disclosed discoloured discounted discouraged discovered disdained |
disfigured disgorged disgraced disgruntled disguised disillusioned disjointed dislodged |
dismantled dismayed dismembered disparaged dispersed dispirited dissembled distressed |
Apart from these two sets, sometimes, there is also a verb from
which the adjective is formed but it has a different meaning.
For example, the adjective in:
a pointed remark
and
a pointed stick
is clearly derived from the verb point but the meaning is
considerably altered.
Transitivity plays a role, too, so
a smoked cheese
is derived from the transitive sense of the verb, and does not imply
that the cheese was smoked in the way that a cigarette is.
(An oddity in all this is the adjective principled which looks like a participle adjective derived from a verb but there is no verb to match in Modern English. The solution lies in knowing that there was a verb principle in English in the 17th century but it has fallen out of use and is no longer recognised.)
Testing to know which is which |
- For -ing forms, there are three usual tests:
- Try modification with very or another intensifying
adverbial. So we have, e.g.:
The film is extremely frightening (adjectival use)
The film is very exciting (adjectival use)
vs.
*The film is extremely frightening me (unacceptable because it's the verbal use)
*The film is very exciting me (unacceptable because it's the verbal use)
The drawback with this test is that some -ing forms resist modification with any intensifier, however, because they are functionally ungradable so while we can have:
A very reassuring set of figures
A very surprising fact
An extremely cutting remark
and so on, we cannot allow:
*A very howling wind
*A very smiling face
*A very walking tour
*A very smoking gun
or
*A very roaring fire
because all of these adjectival uses are either classifiers (which cannot be graded) or on-off states (which also cannot be graded). - Locate a direct object. So we can have, e.g.:
That's an exceptionally irritating noise (adjectival use)
vs.
*That noise is exceptionally irritating me (unacceptable because it's the verbal use)
If an object is present, the usual interpretation is that the form is a verb so, for example:
The TV programme is frightening the children
is verbal, but
The TV programme is frightening
is perceived as adjectival. - See if it is possible to change to the simple aspect of
the verb tense. So, e.g.:
That's very rewarding work (adjectival use)
vs.
*The work rewards (not usually acceptable so not a verbal use)
- Try modification with very or another intensifying
adverbial. So we have, e.g.:
- For -ed / -en forms, the tests are more difficult to apply.
- Occasionally, it is obvious that we are dealing with an
adjective rather than a verb simply because there is no verb
available (although the adjective looks like an -ed
participle). For example:
She was unimpressed by his behaviour
They were uninterested in my problems
must both be adjectival because we cannot have:
*His behaviour unimpressed her
*My problems uninterested them
Unfortunately, these are quite rare examples. - We can apply the modifier test so we can see that, e.g.:
*The house was very destroyed
is not possible so it must be the verbal use of the word.
However, modifiers can be applied to verbs as well so,
The house was completely destroyed by the earthquake
She was very embarrassed by his language
are both possible although the use is clearly verbal (shown by the use of the agentive by-phrase) and the test breaks down. - A more reliable test is to try inserting a that-clause
or other clausal complement and then the distinction is clear:
He was disappointed that the money did not arrive (adjectival use)
*He was disappointed by the money did not arrive (not possible with a verbal use)
I was persuaded by his argument (verbal use)
I was persuaded that he was right (adjectival use)
She was absolutely delighted to hear that she has passed (adjectival use)
She was absolutely delighted by the result (verbal use)
The that-clause is confined to adjectival uses and the by- phrase to verbal uses. - A further test is to replace the copular verb be
with another copular verb. Only the verbs be and
get naturally
form passive (i.e., verbal) uses so in, e.g.
Mary was depressed
or
Mary got depressed
we can make the active form
The news depressed Mary
but in
Mary seemed depressed
She became frightened
or
They appeared interested
no such active form is available so the uses of depressed, frightened and interested are adjectival. - Another test is to try modifying the word with too, very
or another emphasising adverbial. This is possible if the word is
adjectival, unlikely or downright impossible when the word is
verbal. For example:
He is too disappointed to discuss it
They are very tired
Her response was completely unexpected
are all adjectival so the modification is acceptable.
However,
*The road has been very repaired
*The house is too painted for my taste
*That was completely expected
are verbal uses so the modification is unacceptable. - Finally, check for transitivity. If the verb is
intransitive, we can immediately exclude the possibility of a
passive use so, e.g.:
The risen dead
The bread is risen
can only be adjectival because rise is stubbornly intransitive.
- Occasionally, it is obvious that we are dealing with an
adjective rather than a verb simply because there is no verb
available (although the adjective looks like an -ed
participle). For example:
Compounding with participles |
We saw above, in the section on double and compound adjectives that there are three ways to make compound adjectives with participles:
- object noun + participle verb (-ing form)
heart-stopping
coffee-drinking
car-making
in which it is the heart, coffee and the car which form the object nouns of the verbs stop, drink and make. - subject noun + verb (-ed / -en
past-participle form)
handmade
machine cut
factory-produced
in which the subjects of the verbs make, cut and produce are the nouns hand, machine and factory. - adjective + verb (-ed / -en past-participle form)
blue-eyed
simple-minded
hard-bitten
soft- / hard-hearted
odd-shaped
ill-dressed
When any of these kinds of compounding occurs the item moves
immediately out of the verbal zone and into the adjectival one.
For example, in
It is breaking
we are unlikely to perceive of breaking as an adjective but
in:
It is heart-breaking
it clearly can only
be an adjective.
And in, e.g.:
He was bitten
we would automatically assume that bitten is the participle
forming part of the passive construction but in:
He was hard-bitten
we know it is an adjective.
Other examples of this type of compounding are: good-looking,
well-behaved, giant-sized, open-minded, green-eyed, red-rimmed
etc.
Adjective order |
When there is more than one adjective modifying a noun, there is a conventional ordering. Much tosh is devoted to this area, not least in coursebooks (possibly because it's easier to write exercises for the area than to demonstrate its communicative value).
Insert these adjectives into the gap in this sentence between
the
and lorry:
Greek,
huge, old, shabby, green, Volvo
The
_________________________________________ lorry was parked outside.
Click here when you have done that.
You probably have something like:
The huge, old, green, shabby, Greek, Volvo
lorry was parked outside.
but you might also have:
The huge, green, shabby, old, Greek, Volvo
lorry was parked outside.
And most people find both orderings acceptable.
You will, for example, come across admonitions to make the order:
Put adjectives in this order: Opinion then Size then Age then Shape then Colour then Origin then Material then Purpose.
We can end
up with something like:
The idiotic, tiny, old, square, red, English, brick, rented cottage.
Some websites include determiners in the list of adjectives and do
not distinguish between adjectives proper and classifiers and that just
adds to the confusion. Here is an example from the web:
Adjectives in English follow this order:
- Quantity or number
- Quality or opinion
- Size
- Age
- Shape
- Color
- Proper adjective
- Purpose or qualifier
There are seven serious problems with this kind of pseudo-analysis:
- Problem #1:
- It simply doesn't work. It is just what's conventional and
speakers and writers will vary the order for effect or according to
simple personal preference.
Would you say
a green, circular blob
or
a circular, green blob?
The first of these clearly breaks the pseudo-rule (5 and 6) above.
An allied issue here is the speaker's intention in terms of emphasis. We can, for example, have both:
It was a small typical artisan's cottage
and
It was a typical small artisan's cottage
and in the first case, the speaker is implying that although the cottage was typical of those used by artisans, the fact that it was small is additional information. In the second case, the implication is that in order to be typical, an artisan's cottage must be small.
Does it actually matter? - Problem #2:
- It ignores the difference between classifiers and epithets.
Something like a writing desk is not a description of a desk, it is
a classifier of a desk and not a proper adjective (whatever that is)
at all. This is what is implied by the vague purpose or
qualifier mentioned above. (What exactly is meant by the
term qualifier is also less than clear.)
These classifiers are, as we saw above, usually denominal adjectives formed from nouns and, of course, they come nearest to the noun for semantic not syntactical reasons. - Problem #3:
- It ignores the difference between invariable and variable
adjectives. An adjective like spicy describes food and is
a variable adjective (something can be more or less spicy) but an
adjective like Indian is generally invariable. Food is
either Indian or it is not. So, in English we have
I like spicy Spanish sausages
not
*I like Spanish spicy sausages
However, there are times when the ordering can be disturbed to mark a special meaning so we allow, e.g.:
I prefer Spanish spicy sausages to Italian spicy sausages - Problem #4:
- The grammar is wrong: determiners like quantity or number are not adjectives and they do not behave like adjectives.
- Problem #5:
- It is quite rare to have more than two or three attributive
adjectives. When more description is needed, style dictates a
combination so we avoid things like
The interesting, huge, old, blue pot.
preferring something like
The huge, blue pot was interesting and it was obviously old.
or
The interesting old pot had a blue glaze and was huge. - Problem #6
- It ignores the position of participial adjectives
altogether.
Because these adjectives refer to either an on-going state of affairs (-ing participles) or a finished property of the noun (-ed / -en participles) , they are variably positioned so we get, e.g.:
An old crumbling brick wall
and
A beautiful, wooden carved mask - Problem #7:
- Nobody is going to remember the rules for eight types of modifiers, of course, so we need a general rule for guidance in the area rather than trying to teach our students to recall the order of the eight attributes (even if the rules worked).
Here's one:
Put adjectives before nouns according to the cline between subjective and variable to objective and fixed characteristics.
In other words, we recognise that there are two parallel principles at work:
- Objective vs. subjective judgements
- Gradability vs. non-gradability (relativity)
The system can be pictured as:
Like this:
that | idiotic | tiny | old | square/red | English | brick | gate | house |
put determiners here; they are not adjectives, in any case | subjective judgements usually precede other adjectives | a gradable relative
term: a tiny house is still huge compared to a virus |
another gradable relative term but not quite so variable as size | these two can be reversed and are only slightly variable but the concepts are objective judgements | invariable and objective | this is a noun classifier, not an epithet | a denominal,
ungradable classifier (see below) |
put the noun here |
In that scheme, we have the very unusual incidence of five adjectives
and two classifiers occurring in one phrase. That sort of thing is
vanishingly rare, of course, so for most learners, it is enough to order
at most three adjectives using the dual principle we set out here and
putting any classifier nearest to the noun.
That means, for example:
He drives a little, green sports car
The child is an unpleasant, noisy bully
She went for a walk along the long, empty sandy beach
and so on.
It is worth noting here that it has been averred that participial
adjectives, such as astonishing, broken, falling, unloved
etc., follow gradable concepts such as old, silly, blue, small
and so on. This is true but it is not the nature of the
formation of the adjective which is important, it is the fact that
most participial adjectives are ungradable so it comes as no
surprise that they tend to come nearer to the noun than gradable
concepts. Some participial adjectives are, of course,
gradable, and when they occur in a string, they come where one would
expect, before ungradable concepts so we get, e.g.:
a trivial, surprising, unrecognised fact
not
*a trivial, unrecognised, surprising fact
We saw above when considering nouns modifying
other nouns that nouns normally function as classifiers rather than
adjectives proper. Classifiers nearly always come
immediately before the noun they modify and if they don't, the speaker /
writer is marking a special meaning.
The type of classifier also needs to be considered.
We saw above that nouns may be converted
to adjectives grammatically (denominal adjectives) and this matters
in terms of ordering.
As a rule, the denominal adjective will come closest to the noun
following any other classifier or adjective so we get, e.g.:
She carried an expensive gold cigarette case
in which expensive is a simple variable and subjective
adjective, gold is an invariable, objective noun classifier
and cigarette is a denominal adjective converted from the
noun.
Classifiers and denominal adjectives are not, as a rule, separated
by commas.
In this scheme, learners only have to think about whether one
adjective is more subjective or more variable (gradable) than another
so, e.g.:
Put open-minded before
tall before
French + woman
Put fascinating before
short before
science-fiction + story.
That can be taught in a single lesson at B1 / B2 level so you can skip
the unit in the coursebook and move on to more important matters such
as attributive and predicative adjective use or any of the other areas
covered in this guide. If you would like an on-line lesson doing
just that,
click here.
Other languages |
Some languages, e.g., Polish and
Russian, place adjectives proper before the noun (as does English,
usually) but place classifiers after the noun. So, in Polish,
for :
a new sports car
we have:
nowy samochód sportowy
In Italian and Spanish, too, classifiers appear after the noun
but adjectives may appear before it.
So, for example:
a news sports car
translates as
una nuova auto sportiva
In Italian, an objective quality or ungradable adjective
usually follows the noun but subjective judgement or relative
quality may precede the noun. So, for example:
a long blue train
translates as
un lungo treno blu
In French, most adjectives follow the noun but some common
ones usually precede it. They include:
beau, bon, court, grand, gros, haut,
jeune, joli, long, mauvais, meilleur, nouveau,
petit, premier and vieux.
In some cases, an adjective will have a different meaning when it
precedes or follows the noun.
In this language, adjective ordering when two are present is simple
if one naturally precedes and one follows the noun but when more
than one adjective is used after a noun, they are conventionally
coordinated with et (and) so instead of:
an intelligent amusing man
we get
un homme amusant et intelligent
Spanish is different again (although it is similar to Italian in
placing classifiers after the noun) and places adjectives either
before or after the noun depending on whether they serve to
differentiate or not. So, for example,
the white house
will be translated as
la casa blanca
because the adjective serves to distinguish the house from
others in the neighbourhood but
the green grass
will usually translate as
la verde hierba
because we do not usually distinguish green from other colours
of grass.
As in French, however, some adjectives vary in meaning depending on
where they are placed so, in English
a new car
could mean a car which is not old but could also apply to a car
which is a replacement (and may still be quite old). Spanish
allows a differentiation that English cannot produce so
un coche nuevo
is a brand-new car but
un nuevo coche
is a replacement car.
German operates very similarly to English in placing objective
and ungradable ideas nearest to the noun so for
an ugly, new, blue car
the translation would be
ein hässliches neues blaues Auto
However, German, being a more agglutinative language than
English, has a strong tendency to form a compound with any
classifier so
a new blue sports car
translates as
ein neuer blauer Sportwagen
Japanese, while handling adjectives very differently from English, does not have a preferred ordering but the general rule is that the adjective comes before the noun and you alter the ordering of more than one adjective depending on the emphasis you wish to give.
Chinese languages also place adjectives before nouns but there is an added complication concerning the number of characters which make up the word and the languages also have classifying terms, which English does not possess, which always come closest to the noun. For a little more, see the guide to classifiers, partitives and group nouns, linked at the end.
Coordinating multiple adjectives |
An error frequently made by learners is to misuse coordinators
between adjectives, producing unnatural or plain wrong syntax such
as:
*It was a pretty and little village
?It was cheap and good
The cause of these errors is that the learner is unaware
of the rules in English, probably because they have never had them
pointed out, merely having been corrected.
It may also be the case that the learner's first language always or
routinely coordinated adjectives with a word meaning and.
We need to understand when adjectives are simply concurrent
and when they are coordinated. An example will help to
show the difference.
In:
It was her last decent job
the adjective last does not modify job
directly, it modifies decent job so the adjectives
cannot be coordinated and we cannot rephrase this as:
*The job was her last and decent
In other words, the sentence means that she had other decent
jobs but this was the last of them. She also went on to
have other jobs that were not decent.
However, in:
It was her last and best job
we can rephrase the sentence predicatively as:
The job was her last and best
because both the adjectives directly modify job.
The sentence means that it was her last job and it was her best
job.
The adjectives last and best are coordinated
because both apply equally to the noun.
The situation also varies depending on four main factors:
- Whether the adjectives are used predicatively or attributively
- Whether the adjectives refer to the same kind of characteristic
- Whether we are considering base or comparative and superlative forms (or a mixture)
- Whether the adjectives are epithets or classifiers
The rules |
- Additive coordinators: and, as well as and and also:
- Attributive use
- We can put and between adjectives (but often don't
and prefer a comma, see above)
only if the adjectives
describe the same sort of property. This means, in effect
that the adjectives have to occupy the same column in the
ordering table
above. So, we allow, for example:
An attractive and photogenic village / An attractive, photogenic village
A large and cumbersome package / A large, cumbersome package
An interesting and also original idea / An interesting, original idea
If the adjectives are not descriptive of the same kind of attribute, we can have separation with a comma so we allow:
A wide, polluted river
An interesting, small village
A silly, new idea
but not:
*A wide and polluted river
*An interesting and small village
*A silly and new idea
because the adjectives are not descriptive of the same characteristics of the nouns.
Equally, for example, we do not normally allow:
?My old, trusted friend
because old is non-inherent in use (applying to the friendship not the friend) and trusted is inherent in use. We would, therefore, prefer:
My old and trusted friend - It is possible to use what is known as asyndetic
coordination in which no conjunction is needed but could be
supplied so we encounter, for example:
Tired, angry, he walked out
rather than the less formal and more common:
Tired and angry, he walked out
The tired, angry man walked out
or
He walked out, feeling tired and angry
- We can put and between adjectives (but often don't
and prefer a comma, see above)
only if the adjectives
describe the same sort of property. This means, in effect
that the adjectives have to occupy the same column in the
ordering table
above. So, we allow, for example:
- Predicative use
- Predicative use allows the coordinator and more frequently so
we may have:
A beautiful old rowing boat
and not allow
*A beautiful and old rowing boat
but tolerate
The rowing boat was old and also beautiful
in which the normal adjective ordering is reversed for effect (see below). - When two or more adjectives are used predicatively they imply two unconnected attributes of the noun. They are joined with a conjunction so we get, for example:
He was delighted and touched
They were happy as well as rich
She was rich and generous
- Predicative use allows the coordinator and more frequently so
we may have:
- Classifier use
Classifiers are never connected to adjectives proper with conjunctions of any kind. We do not, therefore, find:
*An expensive and wedding dress
*An old and Italian book
etc.
Moreover, adjectives are not usually separated from classifiers by commas (or, in speech, by pausing and separation into tone units) so we do not allow:
*An old, Chinese vase.
because it is Chinese vase that is being described.
We saw above that classifiers, too, are not separated by commas or tone units so we do not allow:
*A new, silver, make-up case
but would prefer:
A new silver make-up case
- Attributive use
-
Contrastive coordinators: but, yet, although
With the use of contrastive coordinators such as but, the situation becomes slightly more complex and there are also sub-rules to consider:- If the adjectives are contrasting, we can use a
coordinators such as but
between them so we allow:
A small but varied selection
A large yet manageable package
An inexpensive although effective procedure
The exhausted yet contented climbers rested at the top - If we choose to use two contrasting adjectives, the
comma or tone unit separation is not usually acceptable:
*A tiny, populous town
*An enormous, light book - Even when there is ostensibly no contrast, the speaker /
writer can insert one to mark the phrase. So, we might have:
An elegantly dressed, old English man
A spacious, airy classroom
Some happy, scruffy children
in which the adjectives are ordered conventionally and separated with commas in the normal way, because there is no obvious contrast. These can be marked for contrast, however, as:
An old but elegantly dressed English man
A spacious yet airy classroom
Some happy although scruffy children - A confusing aspect of coordinated adjectives, especially
when the coordinator is but, is that the
normal ordering is often reversed. We can have for example:
A handsome, old car
in which, as expected, the subjective attitude adjective (handsome) comes before the more objective one (old).
However, if we choose to contrast the adjectives with but, the order is usually:
An old but handsome car
not
*A handsome but old car
- If the adjectives are contrasting, we can use a
coordinators such as but
between them so we allow:
- The insertion of adverbials to distinguish one or other
of the adjectives is common in coordinated phrases
with both additive and contrastive functions and this
overrides the first principle that the adjectives must describe
the same property. So, we may have, for example:
An interesting, cheap holiday
but not
*An interesting and cheap holiday
in the normal way but may choose to insert the coordinator when one adjective is particularly marked, as in:
An interesting and surprisingly cheap holiday
An expensive yet wonderfully restorative break
A cheap but very central hotel
and that is acceptable. - When we mix comparative, superlative and base forms of
adjectives, they are usually coordinated rather than being
separated by commas so, for example:
The cold, wet weather
is acceptable in the normal way but
The cold and wetter weather
would normally be preferred over:
*The cold, wetter weather
Even when we do not mix forms, the coordination is usually preferred for two comparative or two superlative forms so, for example:
The best and least expensive choice
is preferred to
The best, least expensive choice
and
The larger and more useful box
is preferred to
The larger, more useful box. - Classifiers
- When classifiers are used, as we have already seen, additive coordination is not
acceptable and comma use is also unconventional so we do not
allow, e.g.:
*An expensive and Italian restaurant
*An expensive, Italian restaurant
preferring, instead:
An expensive Italian restaurant - Contrastive coordination is also forbidden because
semantically, a classifier cannot be contrasted with an
epithet so, for example:
*A French although cheap restaurant
*A beautiful but terraced house
*A narrow but sea view
are not allowed. - Again, the insertion of adverbials modifying the epithet
overrides this rule, too, although some consider the use of
additive coordinators clumsy, so we allow, e.g.:
A rural but strikingly noisy location
?A metal and exceedingly strong link
- When classifiers are used, as we have already seen, additive coordination is not
acceptable and comma use is also unconventional so we do not
allow, e.g.:
- The forms can be combined. We may have a complex
adjectival phrase such as:
It was an interesting and surprisingly cheap holiday but greatly entertaining
in which we have used both coordinators in a predicative adjectival phrase.
We would not normally allow the attributive use of complex adjectival phrases so:
?An interesting and surprisingly cheap but greatly entertaining holiday
would not usually be acceptable stylistically.
Comparative and superlative forms |
The base form of the adjective is called the positive
to distinguish it from the comparative and superlative forms.
There are two ways to make comparatives and superlatives of
adjectives:
- inflexion
- adding -er or -est to the adjective as in,
e.g.:
black > blacker > blackest - periphrasis
- using more and most or less and
least as in e.g.:
interesting > more interesting > most interesting
attractive > less attractive > least attractive
It is often said that:
- monosyllabic and disyllabic adjectives form the comparative and
superlative by inflexion with -er and -est.
So we get, e.g.:
old > older > oldest
small > smaller > smallest
happy > happier > happiest
bitter > bitterer > bitterest
and so on. - Adjectives with three or more syllables take the periphrastic
form with more and most or less and
least, so we get, e.g.:
conventional > more conventional > most conventional
traditional > less traditional > least traditional
uncaring > more uncaring > most uncaring
complicated > less complicated > least complicated
and so on. - Superlative forms require the insertion of the definite article,
the.
the coldest
the most beautiful
etc. - The superlative forms should not be used when comparing two
nouns. So, we are admonished:
He is the better of the two
is correct, but
She is the oldest of his two children
is wrong.
We shall see.
As far as it goes the first two rules often work but they soon break down,
unfortunately, and getting learners to rely on them can constitute a source of
teacher-induced error.
In reality, life is more complicated.
It is possible to use periphrastic forms with all adjectives |
|
even more wet |
Especially when use predicatively, all adjectives
can use the periphrastic form
regardless of the syllable count.
For example:
Donald Trump is wealthy but Bill Gates is more wealthy
She couldn't have been more delighted or more happy
Attributive short adjectives can also be take the periphrastic
form, especially if they are being contrasted with a longer adjective
which must take that form. For example:
The scheme is appropriate for more well-heeled people but
hard for more poor people
Even monosyllabic adjectives can take the periphrastic
forms, especially when they are used in conjunction with longer
adjectives so we hear, for example:
The views were fabulous in the evening but more great in the
morning.
They were poverty stricken but their neighbour was even more
poor.
She was soaked before but is even more wet now.
When the modifier even is used, this becomes quite common
(or even more common).
When adjectives are used with the correlative conjunction the
... the it is, in fact, normal to use them with the
periphrastic form so we encounter, e.g.:
The more young the child is the more
dangerous will be the environment
The more small the screw is the more hard it will be to find
on the carpet
as well the inflected forms.
All that said, however, it is true that the following short
adjectives do not normally appear in periphrastic constructions:
bad, big, black, clean, far, fast, good, great, hard, high, low,
old, quick, slow, small, thick, thin, tight, wide, young
and of these, bad, far, fast and good are
invariably inflected.
Issues with two-syllable (disyllabic) adjectives |
With disyllabic adjectives, simply tacking on the inflexions will
often work but there are numerous exceptions.
Here are some rules:
- If the sound at the end of the adjective is an
unstressed vowel (such as /i/, /l/ or /ə(r)/) then the inflexional change is most
common:
noisier, wealthier, chubbier, narrower, gentler, subtler, cleverer etc.
To this list we can add some common disyllabic ones such as common, quiet etc.
The periphrastic form is, however, common with all of these (more wealthy, most chubby, more common etc.).
However, when an adjective ends with -re or -er (pronounced /ə(r)/) some speakers abjure what is to them the displeasing sound /ə.rə/ at the end of, e.g.
cleverer, bitterer, maturer
etc. and prefer to use the periphrastic form making, e.g.:
more mature, more slender, more eager, more clever, more meagre
etc.
Because the superlative form does not end in /ə(r)/ but in /rɪst/ speakers may be less unhappy to use the inflected form. We can get, therefore, the rather odd:
more clever, cleverest, more tender, tenderest
and so on.
Adjectives which occupy this uncomfortable space include:
bitter, chipper, clever, dapper, eager, limber, meagre / meager [AmE], slender, sober and tender
Some others, including
golden, inner, lower, outer, proper, rubber, silver, upper, utter
are usually ungradable or classifying so the issue does not arise. - When it acts as an adjective (rather than a determiner, adverb
or pronoun) the word little is replaced with small
when the comparative or superlative form is needed so we prefer, e.g.:
Take the smaller / smallest cup
to
?Take the littler / littlest cup
etc. Using little in the comparative and superlative forms is confined to children's speech. - Adjectives formed by suffixation:
The following suffixes are forbidden the inflections in English and the comparatives and superlatives must be formed periphrastically whatever the syllable count:suffix example suffix example -al central -ful hopeful -ous joyous -id rancid -ant fragrant *- ite polite -ard northward -ive festive -ate irate -less harmless -ect erect -some wholesome -ent recent -ish foolish -ese obese -ic basic
In some cases, the stem is not or no longer available in English.
All adjectives formed with -able and -ible are at least trisyllabic so follow the same pattern. - No participle adjectives, however long or short, inflect.
This also applies to irregular participle forms so, for example, we
have:
most bored, most felt, most hurt, more lost, more struck, most sung, more tiring, more worn etc.
not the inflected
boredest, *felter, *hurter, *loster, *strucker, *sunger,*tiringer, *worner etc.
which would be expected according to the simple rule cited above.
Disyllabic participial gradable adjectives affected by this rule include:ailing
awed
bent
binding
bored
boringbroken
caring
cut
cutting
daring
dashingdated
dazed
dazzling
dried
drunk
fadedfelt
feeling
glaring
hurt
jaded
jarringlost
loved
loving
missed
mixed
mutedrousing
rugged
scared
set
shaded
shakensoiled
struck
stuck
sung
swollen
taxedtaxing
tired
tiring
torn
twisted
twistingupset
varied
vexed
vexing
wearing
worn - It's also worth focusing your learners on the fact that the
syllabic '-le' ending (/ᵊl/) on words like simple changes to a non-syllabic /l/ when used in the comparative or
superlative form (/ˈsɪm.pᵊl/ vs. /ˈsɪm.plə/). Other
examples include:
brittle, feeble, gentle, humble, nimble, noble, subtle.
Issues with three- (and more) syllable adjectives |
The rule that adjectives of three or more syllables always take the
periphrastic form is also not absolute.
Adjectives formed with the prefix -un and the suffix -y,
can take the inflected form although they are trisyllabic, so we get
unhappy > unhappiest
unholy > unholiest
unlucky > unluckier
unruly > unrulier
untidy > untidier
With these, the inflected form is often preferred, in fact.
This does not occur with other endings so we have
unchanging > more / most unchanging
unpleasant > more / most unpleasant
etc.
where the rule is as above for disyllabic adjectives formed with
suffixes.
Compound adjectives, despite often being at least trisyllabic, also
break the rule and the first word takes the inflexion so we get, e.g.:
low-paid > lower paid > lowest paid
long-lasting > longer-lasting > longest-lasting
Other issues: less, least, too, most, more than and very |
There are a number of somewhat peripheral issues with adjective comparison with which, depending on level, we may not trouble learners too much.
- less and least
- The words less and least are similar in
form to the periphrastic uses of more and most
but they reduce the degree of an adjective rather than
increasing it.
No inflected form in English exists for this concept so we use these modifiers with all gradable terms, regardless of their length and form.
As with the uses of more and most the word less is reserved for two items in formal speech although, informally, least is often used in, e.g.:
She is the least intelligent of the two
where a purist would probably prefer
She is the less intelligent of the two
which would also be the form of choice in careful speech or formal writing.
Other examples are:
She was less happy with the second meal
They were the least contented of all the customers
etc.
The adverbs less and least are not usually used with adjectives which themselves describe a lower state so we do not often encounter the items on the left in these examples, preferring those on the right:?less small
?less low
?least cheap
?least bad
?less unwell
?least short
?less young→ larger
higher
most expensive
best
better
longest
older - too and most
- These have a simple function in many cases:
- most forms the superlative of adjectives
according to the rules set out above. We get, for
example:
That is the most interesting of all of them
etc.
In this sense, the word is always used in tandem with the definite article because the reference is specific and definite. - too usually suggests more than is required
and also modifies adjectives. We get, for example:
This is too heavy
meaning, heavier than it should be
- most is often, in rather formal language used
to mean very or extremely. We get,
for example:
That is most interesting
meaning extremely interesting
etc.
With adjectives, this use is confined to non-inherent forms so, while we allow:
She is most happy
(i.e., very happy), we do not allow:
*She is most tall - too is also used to enhance the meaning of an
adjective and suggests that its use is somehow inadequate to
express the sense intended. Again, the use is
considered rather formal. We get, for example:
This is just too delicious
You really are too kind
meaning, more than delicious and more than just kind.
The modifier too is often paired with just in this sense.
The modifier also occurs in negative clauses to mean very as in:
It doesn't look too good
to mean
It looks bad.
- most forms the superlative of adjectives
according to the rules set out above. We get, for
example:
- more than
- This expression sometimes serves a simple functions to
compare adjectives as in:
She is more interested in science than art
etc.
However, there is another use of more than which is not used this way. This use implies either:- that the adjective is inadequate to describe the notion
(see the equivalent use of too above). For
example:
She is more than busy these days
meaning that busy does not adequately describe how she is.
I was more than happy with the work
meaning
I was delighted with the work - that the second compared adjective is inaccurate and
should be better phrased with the first as in, e.g.:
She is more tired than angry
meaning tired is a better description than angry.
He is more lazy than stubborn
meaning lazy is the better description.
*He is lazier than stubborn
is not allowed. - that the adjective is inadequate to describe the notion
(see the equivalent use of too above). For
example:
Other oddballs |
- There's a group of common adjectives which form comparative and
superlative forms from different roots:
good-better-best, bad-worse-worst, far-further/farther-furthest/farthest.
All three are very rare if possible at all in a periphrastic construction. - The word well is sometimes used adjectivally (to mean
not ill) rather than adverbially and follows the same pattern
(well > better) but for this there is no
superlative form at all.
It is arguable that the comparative of the adjective ill is
worse. We would prefer, therefore:
Is she any worse today, doctor?
over
*Is she any iller today, doctor?
although sick > sicker > sickest is quite common.
Generally, as an adjective, the use of well is predicative as in, e.g.:
I don't feel well
but a rarer attributive use is possible as in, e.g.:
She's not a well woman
The adjective unwell has no comparative or superlative form at all although it is clearly a gradable concept and worse is used as the comparative:
I am still feeling unwell although I was feeling worse yesterday. - The form of
older commonly used in family relationships, elder-eldest,
can only be used attributively (although it can be nominalised as
the elder/eldest).
We can have, therefore,
He is the elder brother
but not
*His brother is elder
Additionally, older than is preferred to *elder than.
The derived adjective, elderly, has no such constraints.
When elder is used to describe the fact that someone is more experienced because they have been in a position longer, it is not a comparative form so, for example:
an elder villager
simply refers to a more experienced person who carries some authority in a village.
The use of elders as a plural noun is, while not common, sometimes encountered in, e.g.:
We should be more respectful of our elders
etc.
The suffix -most
This does not, as some suppose, derive from the same root in
Old English as the suffix -est. It is used to
mean nearest to (so is superlative in nature only) and
occurs in, e.g.:
The uttermost limits of the earth
The topmost sail on the ship
The outermost planets of the solar system
The westernmost states of the USA
etc.
This suffix is also used for adjectives often considered
ungradable so we allow:
innermost
uppermost
lowermost
nethermost
leftmost
rightmost
and so on, where
*innerest
*upperest
*lowerest
*netherest
*leftest
*rightest
are not acceptable
Determiners with superlatives |
|
my oldest friend |
A source of teacher-induced error is assuming that all superlative
forms must be preceded by the definite article.
That is often true but the real rule is that they must
usually be
preceded by a determiner, not necessarily
that determiner.
We can have, therefore:
He is the best in the class
He is my oldest friend
That was their most enjoyable holiday
The few cheapest hotels
etc.
We can also omit the determiner and have:
Which one is best?
Of all of them, she was keenest to go.
In these cases, inserting the definite article is not wrong but may
sound somewhat formal.
With the periphrastic form, however, a determiner is almost always
required because of the possible ambiguity with the meaning of most
(= very, in some senses). So, generally:
Who is the most intelligent?
is preferred to
Who is most intelligent?
because that could mean
Who is the most intelligent?
or
Who is very intelligent?
Pre-modification |
Comparative and superlative forms of adjectives may be pre-modified in English but there are restrictions.
- Comparative forms
- Comparative forms of adjectives may themselves be
pre-modified, to amplify, emphasise or tone down the sense so we
find, for example:
He came much earlier than I expected
The work was a lot less expensive than I feared
She was vastly more pleased with her mother's present
She appeared far more relaxed later
I want something a damn sight better than that
He seemed a little better in the morning
The pain got somewhat more acute overnight
It was a bit better than we hoped
It was nowhere near as difficult as I expected
She was nothing like as helpful as her colleague
etc.
No comparatives may be modified with very so we do not encounter, e.g.:
*She felt very better in the morning
or
*It was very more economical - Superlative forms
- Superlative forms are less accommodating and there are
severe restrictions on the type of intensifier which may be
used. We can allow, for example:
She was the very best person for the job
John was much the best person to ask
The car was nowhere near the most economical I have owned
She was nearly the best student in her class
They were almost fastest in the race
It was near enough the most economical solution
He was really the best candidate
The house was truly the most luxurious I have seen
and it is clear that only a two of these (very and almost) can precede the adjective directly with the others preceding the determining article.
Oddly, the intensifying adverb very cannot be used with a periphrastic construction before or after the article so we do not allow, e.g.:
*It was the very most useful of the lot
or
*The car was very the most economical of them
but other adverbs can be used this way so we allow:
It was almost the most useful of the lot
He was nearly the most discourteous man in the company
etc.
The majority of pre-modifying adverbs and adverbials are not allowed with superlative forms so we cannot have, e.g.:
*utterly the noisiest
*purely the most expensive
*awfully the worst
*somewhat the most intelligent
*enormously the cheapest
*vastly the most pleased
*exceedingly the most useful
and so on. - quite, rather, fairly, pretty
- These adverbial intensifiers are troublesome in this regard
because:
- pretty and fairly cannot modify
comparative or superlative forms at all so while we allow
the use with positive forms as in, e.g.:
She was pretty lucky
That was fairly hard
we do not allow:
*She was prettier luckier
*That was fairly harder
*She was pretty the luckiest
*That was fairly the hardest - quite can only modify positive
and superlative forms so we allow, e.g.:
She was quite clever
That was quite the best idea
etc., we do not allow:
*She was quite cleverer
*That was quite a better idea - rather, on the other hand, can only
modify positive and comparative forms so we allow, e.g.:
The garden was rather overgrown
The train was rather more crowded than we expected
That was a rather better thought
etc., we do not allow:
*She was rather the most intelligent
or
*That was the rather best thought
- pretty and fairly cannot modify
comparative or superlative forms at all so while we allow
the use with positive forms as in, e.g.:
Two vs. more than two items to compare |
|
which is best? |
The rule suggested above is often given that two items cannot be
compared using the superlative so, following that, we should believe
that:
I can bring red or white wine. Which is
best?
is wrong and it should be:
I can bring red or white wine. Which is better?
It is the case that the second of these is correct, albeit slightly
formal to some people's ears.
It is also not arguable that the superlative form will conventionally be used for three
or more items so:
I can bring red, white or rosé. Which is best?
is correct and often preferred to:
I can bring red, white or rosé. Which is better?
but most people would be happy in all but the most formal speech to
accept any of these sentences.
However, this all misses the point:
The comparative is exclusive
and refers to separate items but the superlative is
inclusive and
refers to items within the same group. So for example:
This wine is better than the others
refers to the fact that I am separating the wine into two groups (a
group of one only and the rest) and the
one I want is not part of the main group. However,
This wine is the best of them all
refers to the group as a whole and the wine I want is included in that
group.
So, providing only that the items are seen as inclusive, forming a
group, the superlative is natural when singling out one item no matter
how large the group and
This is the best of the two I've tried
is perfectly acceptable because there is only one group of two in
question.
The comparative may be used for more than two items providing that the
item referred to is seen as exclusive and not part of the group and
I bought these three wines because they were better than the other
six
I tried
is also perfectly acceptable because we are making two exclusive groups.
Here's a way of explaining that to a learner (whose first language may
well work differently in this respect):
Related guides | |
the word-class map | for links to guides to the other major word classes |
copular verbs and complements | for more on what are called linking verbs in some sources |
collocation | to see how adjectives form predictable semantic patterns |
colligation | to see how adjectives form predictable grammatical patterns |
comparison | for more on how we compare things in English |
intensifying adjectives | for more on a special class of adjectives |
adverbs | the guide to an allied word class |
adverbial intensifiers and modifiers | for some consideration of how adjectives are amplified, emphasised or toned down |
gradability | for more on a key adjectival phenomenon |
markedness | for more on how adjectives and other language items are marked |
lexicogrammar | for a little more on how meaning subverts and controls syntax |
ambiguity | for a guide which considers ambiguity in adjective use and much more |
participles | for more on how these non-finite forms are used |
passive | for more on quasi-passives with participial adjectives |
modification | for an overview of how noun modification works |
word formation | for more on prefixation and suffixation and other elements |
compounding | for more on how compounds are made and the concept of headedness |
classifiers, partitives and group nouns | for more on how these special types of modifiers are distinguished from adjectives |
lists | this is a link to a PDF document of some of the more important lists in this guide |
There is, of course, a test on some of this.
References:
Celce-Murcia, M and Larsen-Freeman, D, 1999, The Grammar Book,
Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle
Chalker, S, 1984, Current English Grammar, London: Macmillan
Crystal, D, 1987, The Encyclopaedia of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press