Stylistics routledge English Language Introductions

particular stylistic force, is their potential for 
gradability
. Many English adjectives can
be graded by extending or modifying the degree or intensity of the basic quality which
they express. A useful test for checking whether or not an adjective is gradable is to
see if the intensifying word ‘very’ can go in front of it. Indeed, all of the adjectives
cited thus far satisfy this test: ‘a 
very bright
light’, ‘the 
very good
decision’, ‘this 
very
regular
routine’ and so on. The test does not work for another group of adjectives,
known as 
classifying adjectives
, which specify more fixed qualities relative to the noun
they describe. In the following examples, insertion of ‘very’ in front of the classifying
adjectives ‘former’ and ‘strategic’ feels odd: ‘the 
very former
manager’, ‘those 
very
strategic
weapons’.
A special feature of gradable adjectives, whose significance to ‘love is more thicker’
is shortly to become clear, is their capacity to compare objects and concepts through
expressions of 
comparative
, 
superlative
, 
equal
and 
inferior
relationships. Thus, a
comparative form of the regular adjective 
large
can be formed by adding the inflec-
tional morpheme 
er
to form ‘larger’, while a superlative form adds 
est
to form ‘largest’.
Comparative and superlative gradation of irregular adjectives involves a change in
the whole stem of the word: thus, ‘good’ becomes respectively ‘better’ and ‘best’. If
on the other hand the adjective contains more than one syllable, then the compar-
ative and superlative forms normally require the introduction of a separate word, as
in ‘
more
regular’ or ‘
most
difficult’. Finally, adjectives may be graded to signal equal
relationships (‘as bright as . . .’, ‘as difficult as . . .’) as well as inferior or negative, as
opposed to positive, relations (‘less/least large’, ‘less/least regular’).
Another notable feature of adjectives, again pertinent in the present context, is
the way the grammar of English allows for material to be placed 
after
the adjective
in order to determine more narrowly its scope of reference. Compare for instance
the following sentences:
(1)
The pilot was 
conscious
.
(2)
The pilot was 
conscious of his responsibilities
.
Clearly, very different meanings can be assigned to the adjective 
conscious
in the 
two examples. Whereas the adjective on its own in (1) suggests (mercifully) a general
state of being awake, in the second example the appended phrase targets more 
11
111
11
111
L E V E L S O F L A N G U A G E A T W O R K
55

---

specifically a special kind of awareness on the part of the pilot. Thus, in a sentence
like ‘Mary is now 
much better at maths
’ the main adjective signalling Mary’s general
improvement (‘better’) is bounded on 
both
sides by other elements. These elements
comprise the intensifier ‘much’ and the scope defining element ‘at maths’:
intensifier
adjective
scope
much
better
at maths
Notice here how the loss of this final scope element would invite a very different
interpretation, or at least a much less specific interpretation, for the clause as whole.
Exploring levels of language in ‘love is more thicker’
Let us return now to the cummings text, and in particular, to his manipulation of
the features of grammar and vocabulary pinpointed above. To some extent, ‘love is
more thicker’ is an object lesson in how 
not
to form adjective phrases in English.
Much of what the poet does is arguably either grammatically redundant or seman-
tically anomalous. Not intended as a sleight on this style of writing, this comment
requires some explanation. For a start, cummings constantly ‘reduplicates’ the gram-
matical rules for comparative and superlative gradation. In spite of their one-syllable
status, adjectives like ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ receive