Predicate
and Predicator
Two major semantic roles of simple
declarative sentences’ subparts: role of argument(s) (played by referring
expression(s)) and role of predicator. Despite some overlap, semantic analysis
of a sentence into predicator and argument(s) grammatical analysis into subject
and predicate. in this paper I would like to explore the predicate and
predicator and their distinction to referring expression.
Predicator
Hurford (2007) stated that the predicator of a
simple declarative sentence is the word (sometimes a (partial) group of words)
which does not belong to any of the referring expressions and which, of the remainder,
makes the most specific contribution to the meaning of the sentence. Intuitively
speaking, the predicator describes the state or process in which the referring
expressions are involved.
Example
·
asleep is
the predicator in Marpuah is asleep and describes the state Marpuah
is in.
·
love is
the predicator in Tom loved Tincen and describes the process in which
the two referring expressions Tom and
Tincen are involved.
·
wait for is
the predicator in Jumain was waiting for the city bus and describes the
process involving Jumain and the city bus.
Some of the elements that we have stripped
away in isolating the predicator of a sentence do carry a certain amount of
meaning. Thus the indicators of past and present tense are clearly meaningful.
The semantics of tense is interesting, but its contribution to the meaning of a
sentence is of a different type from the contribution made by the predicator,
and will not be pursued here. Notice also that the verb be in its
various forms (is, was, are, were, am) is
not the predicator in any example sentence that we have seen so far.
Consider the following Question!
Strip away referring expressions and the
verb be (and possibly other elements) to identify the predicators in the
following sentences:
·
I am hungry
·
Joe is in San Francisco
·
The Mayor is a crook
·
The man who lives at number 10 Lee
Crescent is whimsical
·
The Royal Scottish Museum is behind
Old College
The predicators in sentences can be of
various parts of speech:
adjectives (red, asleep, hungry,
himsical),
verbs (write, stink, place),
prepositions (in, between,
behind),
nouns (crook, genius).
Despite the obvious syntactic
differences between these different types of words, semantically they all share
the property of being able to function as the predicators of sentences. Words
of other parts of speech, such as conjunctions (and, but, or)
and articles (the, a), cannot serve as predicators in sentences.
The illustration above is the semantic
analysis of simple declarative sentences that reveals two major semantic roles
played by different subparts of the sentence. They are the role of predicator,
illustrated above, and the role(s) of argument(s), played by the referring
expression(s).
Example
·
Joko is Indonesian
·
The predicator
is Indonesian and the argument is Joko
·
The police killed Paiman
·
The predicator
is the police and the argument is Paiman
·
Munir took Rina to Mely
·
The predicator
is Munir and the argument is Munir, Rina ,Mely
The semantic analysis of a sentence into
predicator and argument(s) does not correspond in most cases to the traditional
grammatical analysis of a sentence into subject and predicate, although there
is some overlap between the semantic and the grammatical analyses, as can be
seen from the examples above. We shall be concerned almost exclusively with the
semantic analysis of sentences, and so will not make use of the notion ‘grammatical
predicate (phrase)’. But we will use the term ‘predicate’ in a semantic sense,
to be defined below, developed within Logic.
Predicate
Predicate is any word (or sequence of
words) which (in a given single sense) can function as the predicator of a
sentence.
Example hungry, in, crook,
asleep, hit, show, bottle, are all predicates; and,
or, but, not, are not predicates.
The definition of ‘predicate’ above
contained two parenthesized conditions.
The first, ‘(or sequence of words)’, is
intended to take care of examples like wait for, in front of,
which are longer than one word, but which it seems sensible to analyse as
single predicates. The second parenthesized condition, ‘(in a given single
sense)’, is more important, and illustrates a degree of abstractness in the
notion of a predicate. A ‘word’, as we use the term, can be ambiguous, i.e. can
have more than one sense, but we use ‘predicate’ in a way which does not allow
a predicate to be ambiguous. A predicate can have only one sense.
Normally, the context in which we use a
word will make clear what sense (what predicate) we have in mind, but
occasionally, we shall resort to the use of subscripts on words to distinguish
between different predicates.
Example
The word bank has (at least) two
senses. Accordingly, we might speak of the predicates bank1 and bank2.
Similarly, we might distinguish between
the predicates man1 (noun) _human being, man2 (noun) _ male adult
human being, and man3 (transitive verb) as in The crew manned the
lifeboats.
The
Distinction between Predicate and Predicator
The term ‘predicate’ and ‘predicator’
are terms of quite different sorts. The term ‘predicate’ identifies elements in
the language system, independently of particular example sentences. Thus, it
would make sense to envisage a list of the predicates of English, as included,
say, in a dictionary. The term ‘predicator’ identifies the semantic role played
by a particular word (or group of words) in a particular sentence.(Hurford, et al., 2007)
In this way, it is similar to the
grammatical term ‘subject’: one can talk of the subject of a particular
sentence, but it makes no sense to talk of a list of ‘the subjects of English’:
similarly, one can talk of the ‘predicator’ in a particular sentence, but not
list ‘the predicators of English’. A simple sentence only has one predicator,
although it may well contain more than one instance of a predicate.
Example
A sexy, beautiful stranger entered the
saloon
This sentence has just one predicator, enter,
but the sentence also contains the words sexy, beautiful, stranger,
and saloon, all of which are predicates, and can function as predicators
in other sentences, e.g. Jane is sexy, She is beautiful, She
is a stranger, and That ramshackle building is a saloon.
Consider the following questions!
·
In which of the following sentences does
the predicate male function as a predicator?
(a)
The female cat at the zoo had a nasty accident yesterday
(b)
The crocodile at the zoo is a male
(c)
The snake at the zoo is male
·
In which of the following sentences does
the predicate human function as predicator?
(a)
All humans are mortal
(b)
Soekarno was human
(c)
These bones are human
The
Degree of Predicates
Definition The DEGREE of a predicate is
a number indicating the number of arguments it is normally understood to have
in simple sentences.
Example
Asleep is
a predicate of degree one (often called a one-place predicate)
Love (verb) is a
predicate of degree two (a two-place predicate)
Consider the following Question!
·
Are the following sentences acceptable?
(a)
Thornbury sneezed
(b)
Thornbury sneezed a handful of pepper
(c)
Thornbury sneezed his wife a handful of pepper
·
So is sneeze a one-place
predicate?
·
Are the following sentences acceptable
in normal usage?
(a)
Melly hit
(b)
Melly hit the sideboard
(c)
Melly hit Andy the sideboard
·
So is hit a one-place predicate?
·
Is die a one-place predicate?
·
Is come a one-place predicate?
·
Is murder (verb) a one-place
predicate?
A verb that is understood most naturally
with just two arguments, one as its subject, and one as its object, is a
two-place predicate.
Example
In Melly hit the rabbit, hit is
a two-place predicate.
it has two arguments: Melly, as
subject and , the rabbit, as direct object.
Consider the following Question!
·
Are the following sentences acceptable?
(1)
Keith made
(2)
Keith made this toy guillotine
(3)
Keith made this toy guillotine his
mother-in-law
·
So is make a two-place predicate?
·
Is murder a two-place predicate?
·
Is see a two-place predicate?
There are a few three-place predicates;
the verb give is the best example.
Practice For each of the following
sentences, say whether it seems somewhat elliptical (i.e. seems to omit
something that one would normally expect to be mentioned).
Some of these sentences are more
acceptable than others. Consider the following Question!
·
Herod gave
·
Herod gave Salome
·
Herod gave a nice present
·
Herod gave Salome a nice present
·
How many referring expressions are there
in Sentence (4) .............
We have concentrated so far on
predicates that happen to be verbs. Recall examples such as Cairo is in
Africa, Cairo is dusty, Cairo is a large city. In these examples
in (a preposition), dusty (an adjective), and city (a
noun) are predicates. In the case of prepositions, nouns, and adjectives, we
can also talk of one-, two-, or three-place predicates.
Consider the following Question!
·
How many referring expressions are there
in Her Pen is under my chair?
·
Is Her
Pen is under acceptable in
normal usage?
·
Is Her
Pen is under my chair the carpet acceptable
in normal usage?
·
What degree is the predicate under (i.e.
a how-many place predicate is under)?
·
Of what degree is the predicate near?
·
Is Mojokerto is between Jombang acceptable?
·
Is Mojokerto is between Jombang and Sidoarjo
acceptable?
·
Of what degree is the predicate between?
After we discussed preposition and verb,
we will now turn our attention to adjectives.
Consider the following Question!
·
How many referring expressions are there
in Solikin is handsome?
·
Is Solikin is handsome John (not
used when addressing John) acceptable?
·
Of what degree is the predicate handsome?
·
Of what degree is the predicate rotten?
·
Of what degree is the predicate smelly?
In fact, the majority of adjectives are
one-place predicates.
Consider the following Question!
·
Is Jono is afraid of Fian acceptable?
·
Does Jono is afraid seem
elliptical (i.e. does it seem to leave something unmentioned)?
·
Could afraid be called a
two-place predicate?
·
Is Your car is different from mine acceptable?
·
Does Your car is different seem
elliptical?
·
Of what degree is the predicate different?
·
Of what degree is the predicate identical?
We may have wondered about the role of
the prepositions such as of and from in afraid of and different
from. These prepositions are not themselves predicates. Some adjectives in
English just require (grammatically) to be joined to a following argument by a
preposition. Such prepositions are relatively meaningless linking particles. We
might want to think of the combination of adjective plus linking particle in
these cases as a kind of complex or multi-word predicate with basically one
unified meaning. Notice that one can often use different linking prepositions
with no change of meaning, e.g. (in some dialects) different to, or even
different than. We now turn to predicates which are nouns.
Consider the following Question!
·
How many referring expressions are there
in John is a corporal?
·
Is John is a corporal the army acceptable?
·
Of what degree is corporal?
·
Of what degree is hero?
·
Of what degree is crook?
·
How many referring expressions are there
in This object is a pitchfork?
·
Of what degree is pitchfork?
Most nouns are one-place predicates. But
a few nouns could be said to be ‘inherently relational’. These are nouns such
as father, son, brother, mother, daughter, neighbour.
Consider the following Question!
·
Does John is a brother seem
somewhat odd?
·
Is John is a brother of the Mayor of
Miami acceptable?
·
Could brother be called a
two-place predicate?
·
Could sister be called a
two-place predicate?
Sometimes two predicates can have
nearly, if not exactly, the same sense, but be of different grammatical parts
of speech. Typically in these cases the corresponding predicates have the same
degree, as in the following examples. See if you can determine the degree of
the predicates in these sentences.
Example
Rhoma is foolish,
Rhoma is a fool
Tono is afraid of cats,
Tono fears cats
My rabbit is a jumper,
My parrot jumps
We conclude this unit by discussing one
special relation, the identity relation. This is the relation found in equative
sentences. In English, the identity of the referents of two different referring
expressions is expressed by a form of the verb be.
Example
George W. Bush is the 43rd President of
the United States
The 43rd President of the United States
is George W. Bush
Consider the following Question!
All of the following sentences contain a
variant of the verb be. In which sentences does a form of be express
the identity relation?
·
This is a spider
·
This is my father
·
This is the person I was telling
you about at dinner last night
·
The person I was telling you about
at dinner last night is in the next room
·
The person I was telling you about
at dinner last night is the man talking to Harry
·
The whale is a mammal
The identity relation is special because
of its very basic role in the communication of information. In English, one
must analyse some instances of the verb be (e.g. those in sentences (2),
(3), (5) above) as instances of the identity predicate. Other instances of the
verb be, as we have seen, are simply a grammatical device for linking a
predicate that is not a verb (i.e. an adjective, preposition, or noun) to its
first argument, as in John is a fool or John is foolish. The verb
be is also a device for ‘carrying’ the tense (present or past) of a
sentence.
The
Distinction of Predicates and Referring Expressions
Here, I want to explore further the
distinction and the relationship between referring expressions and predicates. I
will show how the same word can be used for the radically different functions
of reference and predication. And we will begin to see how these two functions
fit together in the overall language system.
Some expressions are almost always
referring expressions no matter what sentences they occur in.
Consider the following Question!
·
Can the proper name Rano Karno ever be
used as the predicator of a sentence?
·
Can the proper name Jakarta ever be used
as a predicator of a sentence?
·
In general, can proper names ever be
used as predicators?
·
Can the verb hit ever be used as a referring expression?
·
Can the preposition on ever be used as a referring expression?
·
In general, can any verb or preposition
be used to refer?
The distinction between referring
expressions and predicates is absolute. In line with Svenonius
(1996 ). He stated that there is not a continuum running
from proper names at one end, through ‘borderline cases’ to verbs and
prepositions at the other. Either an expression is used in a given utterance to
refer to some entity in the world or it is not so used.
There are some phrases, in particular
indefinite noun phrases, that can be used in two ways, either as referring
expressions, or as predicating expressions.
Consider the following Questions
·
Is a man in John attacked a man a referring expression?
·
Is a man in John is a man a referring expression?
A man can be either a referring
expression or a predicating expression, depending on the context. The same is
true of other indefinite NPs. On the face of it, this may seem startling. How
are we able to use the same expressions for different purposes? We will try to untangle
this riddle.
The presence of a predicate in a
referring expression helps the hearer to identify the referent of a referring
expression. We have just drawn a distinction between referring and identifying
the referent of a referring expression. We will explore this distinction.
Consider the following Questions
·
Can the referent of the pronoun I be
uniquely identified when this pronoun is uttered?
·
Can the referent of the pronoun you be
uniquely identified when this pronoun is uttered?
·
Imagine again the situation where you
and I are in a room with a man and a woman, and I say to you (making no visual
gesture), ‘She stole my wallet’. Would you be able to identify the referent of
She?
In conclusion, predicates do not refer.
But they can be used by a hearer when contained in the meaning of a referring
expression, to identify the referent of that expression. Some more examples
follow:
This is in line with Bailyn (2001) He stated that speakers refer to
things in the course of utterances by means of referring expressions. The words
in a referring expression give clues which help the hearer to identify its
referent. In particular, predicates may be embeded inreferring expressions as,
for instance, the predicates man, in, and corner are embedded in the referring
expression the man in the corner. The correct referent of such a referring
expression is something which completely fits, or satisfies, the description made
by the combination of predicates embedded in it.
Semantics is concerned with the meanings
of words and sentences and it would be an unprofitable digression to get bogged
down in questions of what exists and what doesn’t. To avoid insoluble
disagreements between atheist and theist semanticists, for example, over
whether one could refer to God. To avoid such problems, we adopt a broad
interpretation of the notion referring expression so that any expression that
can be used to refer to any entity in the real world or in any imaginary world
will be called a referring
Consider the following Questions
According to this view of what counts as
a referring expression, are the following possible referring expressions, i.e.
could they be used in utterances to refer (either to real or to fictitious entities)?
·
God Yes / No
·
and Yes / No
·
Moses Yes / No
·
that unicorn Yes / No
Notice that we only let our imagination
stretch to cases where the things in the world are different; we do not allow
our imagination to stretch to cases where the principles of the structure and
use of language are different.
To do so would be to abandon the object of our study. So we insist (as in (2)
above) that the English conjunction and, for example, could never be a
referring expression. The case of unicorns was relatively trivial. Now we come
to some rather different
cases.
So far we have mainly kept to examples
of reference to physical objects, like John, my chair, the cat, and Cairo. What
are we to make of expressions like tomorrow and the British national anthem,
which cannot possibly be said to refer to physical objects? It is in fact
reasonable to envisage our notion of reference in such a way that we can call
these referring expressions also, because language uses these expressions in
many of the same ways as it uses the clear cases of referring expressions. Even
though expressions like tomorrow, the British national anthem, eleven hundred,
the distance between the Earth and the Sun, etc. do not indicate physical
objects, language treats these expressions in a way exactly parallel to referring
expressions. We call them referring expressions along with John, the roof, and
Cairo. We say that the British national anthem is used to refer to a particular
song, that eleven hundred is used to refer to a particular number, one o’clock
to a particular time, 93 million miles to a particular distance, and so on.
Language is used to talk about the real
world, and can be used to talk about an infinite variety of abstractions, and
even of entities in imaginary, unreal worlds.
Conclusion
The predicates of a language have a
completely different function from the referring expressions. The roles of
these two kinds of meaning-bearing element cannot be exchanged. Thus Joko is
a teacher makes good sense, but Teacher is a Joko makes no sense at
all. Predicates include words from various parts of speech, e.g. common nouns,
adjectives, prepositions, and verbs. We have distinguished between predicates
of different degrees (one-place, two-place, etc.).
In the course of a sequence of
utterances, speakers use referring expressions to refer to entities which may
be concrete or abstract, real or fictitious. The predicates embedded in a
referring expression help the hearer to identify its referent. Semantics is not
concerned with the factual status of things in the world but with meaning in
language. The notion of universe of discourse is introduced to account for the
way in which language allows us to refer to non-existent things.
References
What is this?!!!! Are you sure??? I don't think it is.
BalasHapus"The police killed Paiman.
The predicator is the police
Munir took Rina to Mely.
The predicator is Munir"