Predications,Arguments and Predicates

1
Predications,Arguments and Predicates
2
For describing the meaning of sentences, as of
words, a hierarchy of unit is requires. The major
unit is what I shall call the predication. This
is not identical to the proposition, but is
rather the common category shred by propositions,
questions, commands, etc.
3
Consider the tree sentences The children ate
their dinner, Did the children et their dinner?
And Eat your dinner, children! Leaving aside
differences of tense and pronouns, these
sentences have a common content which can be
expressed in a kind of Pidgin English Children
eat dinner. It is this type of structure which I
shall be considering under the name of
predication,
4
(No Transcript)
5
Could be broken down into two arguments ( or
logical participants), my uncle and this
car, with a relational element linking them
(owns). This linking element may be called,
following logical rather than grammatical
terminology, predicate.
6
Rather as subject,verb, object, adverb, etc., are
constituents of sentences, so argument and
predicate are constituents of the predications
expressed by sentences. Arguments sometimes
match syntactic elements like subject, verb and
object, and sometimes do not.
7
One has to avoid associating the predicate in
this sense with the predicate of traditional
grammar, and indeed, one must be wary of
expecting these logico-semantic units to have any
direct match with syntactic units.
8
In (2) below for example, the predicate is
expressed by was in front of, which is not a
single unit at all in a syntactic sense (2) A
tall woman was in front of the car
9
Assuming that all predications can be divided up
into arguments and predicates, we have to ask how
the content of these units themselves can be
analyzed. The examples we have looked at suggest
that these units can be analyzed componentially.
10
Thus one of the arguments of the last example,
a tall woman, can be broken down into the
following se to of features A tall woman
TallHumanAdult -male singular
11
A similar analysis, containing features such as
private, motor, and vehicle, could be
supplied for the car.
12
What is perhaps less obvious is that predicates,
too, can be broken down into features and can
enter into relations of hyponymy and
incompatibility. The predicate boiled ( in the
sentence Adam boiled an egg) might, for example
be provisionally analyzed into three components
cook,in water, and past.
13
The third feature, although its nature is more
complex is necessary to distinguish the past
meaning of boiled from the present meaning of
boils. The analysis of boil into components is
required in order to explain, for example, the
following entailment relation
14
Adam boiled an egg entails
Adam cooked an egg.
15
To illustrate the point further, ere is a
somewhat more complicated example of the
componential analysis of predicates an example
taken from the field of spatial relations.
Consider the predicate was in front of above.
A simple way to represent this in terms of
componential analysis ( omitting the past tense
factor) is to symbolize in front of as a
relative feature, contrasting directionally with
behind
16
a? In front of b a? In front of b But
this does not go far enough. The analysis of in
front of fails to show its relation to the
locative meanings, such as over, under, by,
on the left of, etc. For this purpose, three
semantic oppositions are needed
17

• Directions ( directional contrast
  between in front of and
• Directions behind, over and under, etc.
  )
• Horizontal horizontal Lateral
  side-to-side
• -Horizontal vertical -Lateral
  front-to-back

18
We add to these a reciprocal relation indicating
that the common ground of all these meanings is
that of spatial relationship Spatial a is
in a spatial relation to b
19
And we also have to add the following redundancy
rules Horizontal requires spatial
Lateral requires Horizontal
20
The prepositions over, under, in front of,
behind, etc., may now be defined (a) over
spatial direction -horizontal
21
(b) under
spatial
direction
-horizontal
22
(c) in front of
spatial
direction
horizontal
-lateral
23
(d) behind
spatial
direction
horizontal
-lateral
24
(e) on the left
spatial direction
horizontal lateral
25
(f) on the right
spatial
direction
horizontal
lateral
26
(g) beside, by
spatial
proximate
horizontal
lateral
27
But does it have to be complicated? Why, for
instance, should we not distinguish the three
axes ( vertical, front-to-back, and side-to-side)
more economically by a single three-term
opposition rather than by two binary oppositions?
28
Firstly, we need to make a first cut between
vertical and horizontal planes precisely to
account for the meanings of the words vertical
and horizontal. Secondly, the distinction between
vertical and horizontal is required to
explain the locative meanings of by.
29
1)The shell exploded by the wing of the
airplane. 2)Place the one coin by the
other. 3)The red car was parked by the green
one.
30
1)The shell exploded by the wing of the
airplane.
In (1), by simply means in spatial proximity
to. Here by could include over or under.
31
2)Place the one coin by the other.
In (2), the most likely sense is near to on a
horizontal plane---that is, excluding over and
under.
32
3)The red car was parked by the green one.
In (3) the meaning is even more specific it is
beside, in contrast to in front of or
behind.
33
1)The shell exploded by the wing of the
airplane.
by (1) spatial proximate

34
2)Place the one coin by the other.
by (2)
spatial
proximate
horizontal
35
3)The red car was parked by the green one.
by (3)
spatial
proximate
horizontal
lateral
36
This discussion of spatial relations has
emphasized the point that predicates, like
arguments, can be analyzed componentially. So
arguments and predicates are comparable units on
the one hand they are the elements of
predications, and on the other they consist of
features.
37
Predications
Arguments, predicates
features
38
At this stage I shall venture a fairly complete
analysis of a predication --- fairly complete,
that is, except for the omission of redundant
features
39
(No Transcript)
40
Predicate and argument, have different roles in
the whole predication. The predicate is the major
or pivotal element, and may be said to govern the
arguments, which are in a relation of dependency
to it. This is why the diagram above has the
shape of a dependency diagram, with the arguments
branching off from the predicate.
41
The predicate is the major element in the sense
that it determines the number and nature of the
arguments. In the above case, the relational
meaning of in front of requires the presence of
two arguments which can be placed in a spatial
relationship without them, in front of would
not make sense.
42
We may distinguish between a two-place predicate,
which governs two arguments, and a one-place
predicate which governs one argument.
43
One-place predicates govern only one argument.
For example
PREDICATION
Predicate

Big be
large Argument Breed
-Singular Alsatians
44
(No Transcript)
45
A one-place predicate is typically realized, as
in these cases, by a nominal or adjectival
complement Alsatians are large Cats are small
animals. But this type of predicate can also be
conveyed by intransitive verbs A light was
shining Morning came That box is going to fall
etc.
46
It is worth pointing out in advance that there is
a logical reason for regarding predicates as the
main or governing elements of predications the
predicate is the place where the logical element
belonging to the complete predication as a whole
are to be found for example , tense, modality,
and adverbial meanings.
47
The predicate is also the main element of a
predication in the sense that it cannot be
dispensed with. Arguments can be omitted, and are
variable in number. We have seen that a
predication can contain two arguments or one
argument, and there is even a case for saying
that some predications have no arguments at all.
48
Examples are meteorological utterances such as It
is raining, or It will be warm tomorrow.
49
It is difficult to accept that the element
expressed by it in these sentences is an
argument, since it has no meaning independent of
the predicate notice, for instance, that it is
so predictable that one cannot construct a
question for which it is an appropriate
anwserWhat was raining cats and dogs all last
night? It.
50
There are three general types of predicate,
two-place, one-place and no-place, and will
symbolize them when necessary, as P2, P1 and P0.
51
It is doubtful whether there are further
predication types than these three, as what
appear to be three-or four-place predications
usually, if not always, turn out to be
combinations of two-place and one-place
predications. Thus , John gave the dog a bone
can by analyzed as follows
52
John gave the dog a bone
(12) John caused X X The dog received a
bone. In summary therefore, we have
distinguished three types of predicate, and three
corresponding types of predication
53
(13) two-place
P2 a b
childrenLIKEsweets
54
one-place P1
a JohnBE ILL
55
no-place Po
(it) BE HOT
56
Entailment and Inconsistency We have noticed the
close connection between hyponymy and entailment,
and between incompatibility and inconsistency. We
are now in a position to understand these
connections better. In predication analysis,
hyponymy and incompatibility are treated as
relations between arguments and between
predicates, rather than between word-meanings.
57
An entailment relation exists between two
propositions which differ only in that an
argument of one is hyponymous to an argument of
the other. For example, a is a hyponym of b in
(16) a
b I saw a boy Entails I saw
a child
58
The hyponymy relation can also be between
predicates (17) P
Q Turpin
stole a horse Entails Turpin took a horse
59
The following general rules for entailment and
inconsistency may now be stated X entails Y if
X and Y are identical except that 1. X contains
an argument a and Y contains an argument b,
and 2. a is a hyponym of b a
b
I saw a boy Entails I saw a child
60
or 1. X contains an argument a and Y contains
an argument b, and 2. b is a hyponym of a
a
Children are a nuisance.
b entails Boys are a nuisance.
61
P
Q
Turpin stole a horse Entails Turpin took a
horse
or 1. X contains a predicate P and Y
contains a predicate Q, and 2. P is a
hyponym of Q
62
P
Q
Mary dislikes work. Mary likes work.
X is inconsistent with Y if X and Y are identical
except that 1.X contains a predicate P and Y
contains a predicate Q 2.P is incompatible with
Q
63
The rules of entailment and inconsistency apply
cumulatively, in the following ways (A)If X
entails Y and Y entails Z, then X entails Z
(i.e. entailment is a transitive
relation) (B)If X entails Y and Y is
inconsistent with Z, then X is
inconsistent with Z.
64
These two supplementary rules may be illustrated
by supposing X,Y,and Z to be the following (A)X
Boys ran down the street Y Boys went
down the street Z Children went down the
street (B)X John was singing
drunkenly Y John was singing Z John
was silent.
65
Tautology arises, roughly speaking, when
information contained in an argument of a
prediction includes the information contained in
the rest of the predication. In a one-place
predication, this means simply that the argument
is hyponymous to the predicate
66
The argument is hyponymous to the predicate
( a
P ) HUMAN ADULT -MALE
-MALE ltwho.?LOVE.
yougt The woman you love
is female
67
In a two-place predication, a tautology arises
wherever a qualifying predication in one of its
arguments semantically includes the rest of the
main predication. ( a
.SELL. food ) HUMAN MALE ltwho.SELL.meatgt
A butcher sells food
68
These rules can be stated more precisely in
linear notation Rules of tautology a) If a is
hyponymous to P, (aP) is a tautology
This boy is male. b) If (a.P.b) semantically
includes ( a.Q.c), then (alta.P.bgt. c) is a
tautology. A butcher sells food
69
b) If (a.P.b) semantically includes (
a.Q.c), then (alta.P.bgt. c) is a
tautology. HUMAN MALE ltwho.SELL.meatgt (
a P b) A butcher
sells food a lta.P.bgt
Q c
70
The third type of deviation, semantic anomaly
arises when one of the arguments or the predicate
of the main predication is self-contradictory.
This orphans father drinks heavily.
This programme is for the music-lover who
dislikes music.
71
Contradiction Contradiction arises when the
information contained in an argument of a
predication is incompatible with the information
contained in the predicate.
That man is female.
72
In a two-place predication, a contradiction means
the qualifying predication is inconsistent with
the rest of the main predication, e.g.
This orphan has a father.