Predicate (grammar)

There are two competing notions of the predicate in theories of grammar. Traditional grammar tends to view a predicate as one of two main parts of a sentence, the other being the subject, which the predicate modifies. The other understanding of predicates is inspired from work in predicate calculus (=predicate logic, first order logic). On this approach, the predicate of a sentence corresponds mainly to the main verb and any auxiliaries that accompany the main verb, whereby the arguments of that predicate (e.g. the subject and object noun phrases) are outside of the predicate. The competition between these two concepts has generated confusion concerning the use of the term "predicate" in theories of grammar. This article considers both of these notions.

Predicates in traditional grammar

The predicate in traditional grammar is inspired by propositional logic of antiquity (as opposed to the more modern predicate logic). A predicate is seen as a property that a subject has or is characterized by. A predicate is therefore an expression that can be true of something. Thus, the expression "is moving" is true of those things that are moving. This classical understanding of predicates was adopted more or less directly into Latin and Greek grammars and from there it made its way into English grammars, where it is applied directly to the analysis of sentence structure. It is also the understanding of predicates that we find in dictionaries of the English language. The predicate is one of the two main parts of a sentence (the other being the subject, which the predicate modifies). The predicate must contain a verb, and the verb requires, permits, or precludes other sentence elements to complete the predicate. These elements are: objects (direct, indirect, prepositional), predicatives, and adjuncts:

She dances. (verb-only predicate)

Ben reads the book. (verb + direct object predicate)

Ben's mother, Felicity, gave me a present. (verb + indirect object + direct object predicate)

She listened to the radio. (verb + adjunct predicate)

They elected him president. (verb + object + predicative noun predicate)

She met him in the park. (verb object adjunct predicate)

She is in the park. (verb + predicative prepositional phrase predicate)

The predicate provides information about the subject, such as what the subject is, what the subject is doing, or what the subject is like. The relation between a subject and its predicate is sometimes called a nexus. A predicative nominal is a noun phrase that functions as the main predicate of a sentence, such as "George III is the king of England", the king of England being the predicate nominal. The subject and predicative nominal must be connected by a linking verb, also called a copula. A predicative adjective is an adjective that functions as a predicate, such as "Ivano is attractive", attractive being the predicate adjective. The subject and predicate adjective must also be connected by a copula.

This traditional understanding predicates has a concrete reflex in all phrase structure theories of syntax. These theories divide the generic declarative sentence into a noun phrase (NP) and verb phrase (VP). This concept of sentence structure stands in stark contrast to dependency structure theories of grammar, which place the finite verb (=conjugated verb) as the root of all sentence structure and thus reject the binary NP-VP division.

Alternative understanding

The alternative understanding of predicates is inspired by work in predicate calculus as associated with Gottlob Frege. This understanding sees predicates as relations or functions over arguments. The predicate serves either to assign a property to a single argument or to relate two or more arguments to each other. Sentences consist of predicates and their arguments (and adjuncts) and are thus predicate-argument structures, whereby a given predicate is seen as linking its arguments into a greater structure. This understanding of predicates sometimes renders a predicate and its arguments in the following manner:

Bob laughed. → laughed (Bob)

Sam helped us. → helped (Sam, us)

Jim gave Jill his dog. → gave (Jim, Jill, his dog)

Predicates are placed on the left outside of brackets, whereas the predicate's arguments are placed inside the brackets. One acknowledges the valency of predicates, whereby a given predicate can be avalent (not shown), monovalent (laughed in the first sentence), divalent (helped in the second sentence), trivalent (gave in the third sentence). These types of representations are analogous to formal semantic analyses, where one is concerned with the proper account of scope facts of quantifiers and logical operators. Concerning basic sentence structure however, these representations suggest above all that verbs are predicates and the noun phrases that they appear with are their arguments. On this understanding of the sentence, the binary division of the clause into subject NP and predicate VP is hardly possible. Instead, the verb is the predicate, and the noun phrases are its arguments.

When auxiliary verbs appear, they are viewed as part of the predicate. The predicates are in bold in the following examples:

Bill will have laughed.

Will Bill have laughed?

We were helped by Sam.

Were we helped by Sam?

Who did Jim give his dog to?

The understanding of predicates suggested by these examples sees predicates consisting of one main verb and zero, one, two, or more auxiliary verbs. These verbs need not form a string, but they can be interrupted by their arguments. The approach to predicates illustrated with these sentences is more widespread in Europe, particularly in Germany, where the understanding predicates from traditional grammar discussed above seems to hardly exist (for those who know German, see the Wikipedia article in German on the predicate).

There are certainly many questions about this understanding of predicates. For instance, while the predicate nouns and adjectives mentioned above can easily be viewed as forming the predicate, the situation is much less clear for the object NP of a preposition, e.g.

The book is on the shelf.

The book is on the shelf.

Whether the object NP the shelf should be included in the predicate, as shown in the first sentence, or excluded from the predicate, as shown in the second sentence, is not clear.

This alternative understanding of predicates is more compatible with the dependency grammar approach to sentence structure, which places the finite verb as the root of all structure, than it is with the phrase structure grammar (=constituency grammar) approach to sentence structure, which assumes the binary division of the clause into noun phrase (NP) and verb phrase (VP).

Carlson classes

The seminal work of Greg Carlson distinguishes between types of predicates. Based on Carlson's work, predicates have been divided into the following sub-classes, which roughly pertain to how a predicate relates to its subject.

Stage-level predicates

A stage-level predicate ("s-l predicate" for short) is true of a temporal stage of its subject. For example, if John is "hungry", then he typically will eat some food, which lasts a certain amount of time, and not his entire lifespan. S-l predicates can occur in a wide range of grammatical constructions and is probably the most versatile kind of predicate.

Individual-level predicates

An individual-level predicate ("i-l predicate") is true throughout the existence of an individual. For example, if John is "smart", this is a property of him, regardless which particular point in time we consider. I-l predicates are more restricted than s-l ones. I-l predicates cannot occur in presentational "there" sentences (a star in front of a sentence indicates that it is odd or ill-formed):

There are police available. (available is s-l)

*There are firemen altruistic. (altruistic is i-l)

S-l predicates allow modification by manner adverbs and other adverbial modifiers. I-l ones do not.

Tyrone spoke French loudly in the corridor. (speak French can be interpreted as s-l)

*Tyrone knew French loudly in the corridor. (know French cannot be interpreted as s-l)

When an i-l predicate occurs in past tense, it gives rise to what is called a "lifetime effect": The subject must be assumed to be dead or otherwise gone out of existence.

John was available. (s-l $\rightarrow$ no lifetime effect)

John was altruistic. (i-l$\rightarrow$ lifetime effect.)

Kind-level predicates

A kind-level predicate ("k-l predicate") is true of a kind of thing, but cannot be applied to individual members of the kind. An example of this is the predicate "are widespread." One can't meaningfully say of a particular individual John that he is widespread. One may only say this of kinds, as in

Humans are widespread.

Certain types of noun phrase cannot be the subject of a k-l predicate. We have just seen that a proper name cannot be. Singular indefinite noun phrases are also banned from this environment:

*A cat is widespread. (compare: Nightmares are widespread.)

Collective vs. distributive predicates

Predicates may also be collective or distributive. Collective predicates require their subjects to be somehow plural, while distributive ones do not. An example of a collective predicate is "formed a line". This predicate can only stand in a nexus with a plural subject:

The students formed a line.

*The student formed a line.

Other examples of collective predicates include "meet in the woods", "surround the house", "gather in the hallway" and "carry the piano together". Note that the last one ("carry the piano together") can be made non-collective by removing the word "together". Quantifiers differ with respect to whether or not they can be the subject of a collective predicate. For example, quantifiers formed with "all the" can, while ones formed with "every" or "each" cannot.

All the students formed a line.

All the students gathered in the hallway.

All the students carried a piano together.

*Each student gathered in the hallway.

*Every student formed a line.

Other languages

Japanese

The topic–comment structure of Japanese grammar yields very distinct predicates (as the comment). Indeed, Japanese adjectives and Japanese verbs behave rather similarly (for example, the negative form of a verb is an adjective), and can be understood as being two forms of predicates; predicate form is referred to as 終止形 (shūshikei, terminal form). Further, unlike in English, Japanese adjectives do not exist independently of predication, and the dictionary form is the predicate form – for example, 小さい (chiisai) is the predicate form of "small", and means "is small", not simply "small". Accordingly, while some textbooks translate Japanese adjectives as English adjectives (translating 小さい as "small"), other textbooks, such as Japanese: The Spoken Language, translate Japanese adjectives as English predicates (translating 小さい as "is small").

See also

• Clause
• Dependency grammar
• Inflectional phrase
• Phrase
• Phrase structure grammar
• Predicative (adjectival or nominal)
• Secondary predicate
• Topic–comment
• Verb

Bibliography

• Carlson, Greg N. (1977). "A unified analysis of the English bare plural". Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (3): 413–58. 
• Carlson, Gregory Norman (January 1, 1977). Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland.  (Also distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club and GLSA UMass/Amherst.)
• Jaeger, Gerhard (2001). "Topic–comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates". Journal of Semantics 18 (2): 83–126. 
• Kratzer, Angelika (1995). "Stage Level and Individual Level Predicates". In Carlson, G.; Pelletier, F.J. (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Krifka, Manfred (1989). "Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution and Quantification in Event Semantics". In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, P. von Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.
• Vendler, Zeno (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801404363. 
• Verkuyl, Henk (1972). On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. ISBN 9027702276. 
• Verkuyl, Henk (1993). A Theory of Aspectuality. The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521443628.