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).

1
 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.

2
 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

3
· 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?

4
· 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.

5
 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

6
 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

7
 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.).

8
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.