Grammar I

LV/UB

Graciela Palacio
2012 (revised 2015)

LESSON 5:
ARGUMENTS AND PREDICATORS
VERBS AND THEIR ARGUMENTS
Let us consider the following sentences:
1. John sneezed.
2. John killed Bill.
3. John gave Bill the book.
4. John told Bill the truth.
5. John put the book on the table.
Whenever we want to analyse a simple sentence, we must first identify the verb, the
conjugated verb. From a semantic point of view, the verb is the most important element of the
sentence because it determines the number of elements that go with it. Haegeman (1991)
compares the verb to the script of a play, in the sense that its meaning determines the number
of actors or participants that will be needed if we want to represent its meaning.
Suppose we want to represent the meaning of the verb sneeze. One actor/participant
would be enough to perform the action of sneezing (e.g. John sneezed).
In the case of the verb kill, we would need two actors/participants, one to perform the
action of killing and another actor who will be affected by the same action (e.g. John killed
Bill).
In the case of the verb give, we would need three participants, the person who
performs the action of giving, an object that will change hands and a receiver of the object
(e.g. John gave Bill the book or John gave the book to Bill).
The same would happen with verbs of communication (e.g. John told Bill the truth).
There will be a sender of a message, a receiver of the message and the message itself. Verbs
of giving and verbs of communication are alike in the sense that both require three entities.
Notice that we are using entity to refer to animate and inanimate things, i.e. people and
objects. In both cases there is an entity that goes from one participant to another.
Verbs like put also require three entities, somebody who performs the action, i.e. an
agent, an entity that will be placed somewhere and a place or location (e.g. John put the book
on the table). Verbs like put are, however, syntactically different from verbs of giving and
verbs of communication.
We will refer to the verb as the predicator of the sentence. The verb performs the role
of predicator. Predicator is a semantic label. When we say that the verb is the predicator we
are doing a semantic analysis of the sentence, we are paying attention to its meaning. The
nominals or elements that go with it will be referred to as arguments. Again argument is a
semantic label.
Verbs like sneeze, which need only one actor or argument, will be called oneargument verbs or one-place verbs because there is only one place or position to be filled in.
Verbs like kill, which take two nominals or arguments, will be called two-argument verbs or
two-place verbs because there are two positions to be filled in, one before the verb and one
after the verb. Verbs like give, tell and put will be called three-argument verbs or three-

Page 1 of 5/ Lesson 5

place verbs, since they take three arguments or nominals. Although give, tell and put are
similar because of the number of arguments that they take (i.e. they are all three-place verbs),
they are not alike in another sense which we will discuss presently.
If we specify the number of arguments that a verb combines with, what we are
describing is the argument structure of that verb. The argument structure of a verb specifies
the number of arguments that the verb takes. It is represented in the following way:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

argument structure of sneeze: <1>

argument structure of kill: <1, 2>
argument structure of give: <1, 2, 3>
argument structure of tell: <1, 2, 3>
argument structure of put: <1, 2, 3>

TO SUM UP:
When confronted with a sentence such as 1. above (i.e. John sneezed), you will be expected
to:
1. look for the verb and underline it
2. think of the meaning of this verb and of the number of entities (people or objects)
that you would need to represent its meaning, and
3. state its argument structure.
The semantic analysis of the following sentences should look as follows:
1. John sneezed.
Semantic analysis:
Predicator: sneeze (one-place verb)
Arguments: John (only one)
Argument Structure of sneeze: <1>
2. John killed Bill.
Semantic analysis:
Predicator: kill (two-place verb)
Arguments: John, Bill (two arguments)
Argument Structure of kill: <1, 2>
3. John gave Bill the book.
Semantic analysis:
Predicator: give (three-place verb)
Arguments: John, Bill, the book (three)
Argument Structure of give: <1, 2, 3>
4. John told Bill the truth.
Semantic analysis:
Predicator: tell (three-place verb)
Arguments: John, Bill, the truth (three)
Argument Structure of tell: <1, 2, 3>
5. John put the book on the table.
Semantic analysis:
Predicator: put (three-place verb)

Page 2 of 5/ Lesson 5

Arguments: John, the book, on the table (three)

Argument Structure of put: <1, 2, 3>
Notice that when we isolate the predicator we use the bare form of the verb, i.e. the
verb without tense. One thing is the meaning of the verb, another thing is the tense. Notice
too that if a one-place verb, i.e. a verb that requires only one argument, appears with two
arguments (e.g. *John sneezed the handkerchief) the sentence is ungrammatical. The same
would happen if a two-place verb appears with only one argument (*John killed) or if a threeplace verb appears with only two arguments (*John put the book). The asterisk at the
beginning of the sentence is a convention to express that the sentence is not well-formed.
Verbs are not the only elements that can function as predicators. Adjectives, nouns
and prepositions can also function as predicators and they also take arguments. We will now
consider each category in detail.
TO SUM UP:
The elements that can function as predicators are:
1. verbs
2. adjectives
3. nouns
4. prepositions
ADJECTIVES AND THEIR ARGUMENTS
If we wanted to represent the meaning of the sentence John is tall, one actor would be
enough. We will refer to tall as a one-place adjective. The semantic analysis of a sentence
where the predicator is a one-place adjective should look as follows:
1. John is tall.
Semantic analysis:
Predicator: tall (one-place adjective)
Arguments: John (only one)
Argument Structure of tall: <1>
But adjectives can also be two-place, i.e. they can also take two arguments. This is the
case of adjectives such as envious, fond, afraid, sure, aware, which are derived from or
related to two-place verbs. Consider the following sentences:
1. John envies Mary.
2. John is envious of Mary.
The verb envy is a two-place verb. The adjective envious, which is related to the verb envy,
inherits the same number of arguments. Notice that in the case of the adjective a preposition
has to be inserted before its second argument, in this case of. We find the same type of
relation between the verb like and the adjective fond (John likes Mary/ John is fond of Mary),
between the verb fear and the adjective afraid (John fears storms/ John is afraid of storms),
between the verb know and the adjective aware (John knows that Bill is a liar/ John is aware
that Bill is a liar). The semantic analysis of a sentence where the predicator is a two-place
adjective should look as follows:
1. John is fond of Mary.

Page 3 of 5/ Lesson 5

Semantic analysis:
Predicator: fond (two-argument adjective or two-place adjective)
Arguments: John, Mary
Argument Structure of fond: <1, 2>
There are no three-place adjectives. Notice too that in the previous sentences (John is tall/
John is fond of Mary) the verb is be. The verb be, however, has no semantic content (i.e. no
meaning) so it does not count as the predicator of the sentence. It is the carrier of tense,
though. According to Haegeman and Guron (1999) be is said to function as a copular verb: it
establishes a predicative relation between the predicate and its argument There are languages
such as Hebrew where the verb be is optional if the sentence is in the present. They say
something like John tall or John fond of Mary.
NOUNS AND THEIR ARGUMENTS
Nouns and noun phrases usually function as arguments. There is one exception,
though. In the following sentence:
John is a doctor.
the indefinite noun phrase a doctor functions as the predicator, i.e. it has a predicative
function. We are predicating (i.e. saying) something about John, the fact that he is a doctor.
Sentences like this are called predicative sentences. The noun John, on the other hand, has a
referential function, in the sense that the noun is used to refer to an individual, John.
If we wanted to represent the meaning of the sentence John is a doctor, one actor would be
enough, as long as he had the necessary attributes that could help us identify him as a doctor.
The semantic analysis of the sentence should look as follows:
1. John is a doctor.
Semantic analysis:
Predicator: a doctor (one-argument noun phrase)
Arguments: John
Argument Structure of a doctor: <1 >
We will make a distinction between predicative sentences, such as the one provided above,
and identificational or equative sentences such as:
1. John is my brother.
2. Mr. Brown is the dean.
Notice that in these sentences the two phrases are definite noun phrases and that we can
reverse the order and still get a grammatical sentence:
1. My brother is John.
2. The dean is Mr. Brown.
This reversal of order is not possible when the indefinite noun phrase has a predicative
function:
3. *A doctor is John. (ungrammatical because a doctor has a predicative function)

Page 4 of 5/ Lesson 5

In the presence of an equative sentence, we will say that the predicator is be, and that it
combines with two arguments. Equative sentences will be the only case in which we will
consider be as the predicator. Example:
Mr. Brown is the dean.
Semantic Analysis.
Predicator: be (equative sentence)
Arguments: Mr. Brown, the dean
Argument Structure of be: <1,2>
PREPOSITIONS AND THEIR ARGUMENTS
Prepositions also take arguments. Prepositions such as in, on are two-place prepositions in the
sense that they relate two arguments, e.g.:
John is in the room.
The book is on the table.
The semantic analysis of the sentence John is in the room should look as follows:
1. John is in the room.
Semantic analysis:
Predicator: in (two-place preposition)
Arguments: John, the room
Argument Structure of in: <1, 2>
Lesson 5 Activity 1: (to be discussed in class)
Analyse the following sentences from a semantic point of view:
1. Laura told us a very strange story.
2. My mother keeps the sugar in the fridge.
3. The students knowledge of Latin was quite good.
4. The student was good at Latin.
5. Ann said that she was exhausted. (Here you will have to do two semantic analyses,
one for the predicator say and one for the predicator exhausted)
Lesson 5 Activity 2: (to be handed in as Assignment 5)
Analyse the following sentences from a semantic point of view
1. Laura placed the book on a shelf.
2. The boy ate the sandwich.
3. The child was very innocent. (= nave)
4. The man was innocent of any crime. (= not guilty of any crime)
5. John is in London.
REFERENCES:
Haegeman, L. (1991) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Blackwell.
Haegeman, L. & J. Guron (1999) English Grammar: A Generative Perspective, Blackwell.
Hurford, J. & B. Heasley (1983) Semantics: a coursebook. CUP.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language. Longman.

Page 5 of 5/ Lesson 5