Definition of the Predicate

The traditional definition of the predicate is logical. Thus, G. Curme writes, 'The predicate is that which is said of the subject.' However, the predicate, just like the subject, is a unit of structural sentence analysis. Viewed from this angle, the predicate represents the verbal component of predication. In inflected languages, the predicate renders all the predicative categories: modality, tense, and person. In analytical languages, the predication building power of the predicate is more restricted: here it generally serves as an indication of modality and tense, person characteristics being comprised in the nominal component of predication.

Boundaries of the Predicate

As opposed to the subject, that has definite morphological and syntactic means of expression and hence causes almost no difficulties in the process of singling it out, the predicate presents one with a lot of controversial points.

Of course, word order in analytical languages is of great help. In declarative sentences, the predicate follows the subject; in interrogative sentences, the auxiliary part of the predicate precedes the subject, the notional part of the predicate comes after it.

However, the syntactic criterion of word order fails to define the boundaries of the predicate. No wonder that one and the same sentence admits of different interpretations as far as the predicate is concerned. Three approaches stand out especially clearly.

Some linguists [for example, A.A. Potebnya; J.C. Fernald] identify the predicate with the verb. There is no gainsaying the fact that the verb plays an important role in realizing predication because it possesses morphological mood and tense forms indispensable for expressing predication.

Others [the vast majority] are of opinion that the presence of the verb constitutes a necessary, but not a sufficient property of the predicate as a means of realizing the verbal component of predication, for the essence of predication is not restricted to the set of the verbal categories of modality, tense, and person. Predication always actualizes a certain situation, i.e. communicates something. On the syntagmatic axis, an isolated verb often displays communicative deficiency. As a result, the boundaries of the predicate are widened to embrace also those elements that impart communicative independence to a structurally autonomous unit.

For the English language, the predicate can be tentatively defined as the verbal component of predication realizing the grammatical categories of modality, tense, sometimes - person, and communicatively sufficient for the characterization of the nominal component of predication. When one component meets these requirements, the predicate is considered to be simple: when two or more components are necessary, we speak of compound predicates.

Classification of Simple and Compound Predicates

The majority of linguists think that the simple predicate can be only verbal, expressed by a finite verb in a synthetic or analytical form. Cf.:

But he never found him (S. Barstow).

You haven't told me your name (H.E. Bates).

B.A. Ilyish thinks that the simple predicate can be also nominal. We do not share this conception on the ground that the nominal component cannot, by itself, realize the predicative categories of modality and tense.

The compound predicate falls under verbal and nominal. The compound verbal predicate is further subdivided into several types.

1. The compound verbal modal predicate. It comprises a modal verb or its equivalent and an infinitive, e.g.:

A moment may ruin a life (D. Cusack).

2. The compound verbal aspective predicate. It consists of a finite verb indicating the beginning, duration, end, or repetition of an action followed by an infinitive or gerund. Cf:

He began to laugh (D. du Maurier).

Piggy went on speaking (W. Golding).

B.A. llyish and L.S. Barkhudarov deny the existence of the compound verbal aspective predicate. They consider that his work in the sentence He began his work (B.A. llyish) and to work in the sentence He began to work (B.A. llyish) are identical in function: both can be qualified as objects to the verb began.

In addition to the compound verbal modal predicate and the compound verbal aspective predicate, G.G. Potcheptsov singles out:

a) compound verbal predicates, expressing the attitude of the subject to the action, e.g.:

/ want to write (E. Hemingway);

b) compound verbal predicates, expressing the reality or non-reality of the action, e.g.:

I feigned to read (H.G. Wells).

All these predicates, in our opinion, comprise a modal shade of meaning and can be included as a subclass into the group of compound verbal modal predicates.

The compound nominal predicate is also heterogeneous. The compound nominal predicate proper comprises a copular verb devoid of lexical meaning (in English there is only one empty copular verb - the verb be) and a predicative. The predicative can be expressed by a noun, an adjective, a pronoun, an adverb, a participle, a word combination, etc. Cf.: He is a waiter (V. Evans). Kitty was silent (W.S. Maugham). Who's that? - It's me (M. Swan).

Their secret is out (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

He seemed puzzled (E. Queen). It's a wonderful story (J. Irving).

In the second type of compound nominal predicates, the grammatical centre of the predicate possesses a certain lexical meaning so that one can draw a distinction between:

1) copular verbs of being: feel, look, seem, smell, taste, etc..

e.g.:

You look happy (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);

2) copular verbs of becoming: become, grow, get, turn, etc.,

e.g.:

The sound of footsteps grew louder (Longman Language Activator);

3) copular verbs of remaining: remain, continue, keep, stay, etc., e.g.:

For a moment he remained silent (A. Christie).

The second type of compound nominal predicates exists in two varieties: free compound nominal predicates in which the meaning of the predicate is the sum total of the meanings of its components (see the above given examples), and phraseologically bound compound nominal predicates in which the meaning of the predicate is not directly deduced from the meanings of its components (for detailed treatment see the problem of the phraseological predicate).

THE OBJECT