Skip to main content
Log in

The Structure of Predication

Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper discusses the structure of non-verbal predication, with particular reference to the role of the copula. Differently from the main tenets of contemporary logico-philosophical and linguistic theories, a model of predication is proposed where the verbal component (specifically, tense information) is regarded as central in establishing the syntactic and semantic relation between a predicate and its subject. It is thus possible to recover some of the insights of the pre-Fregean analysis of predication. The proposed solution has a number of significant consequences for the structure to be assigned to non-verbal predication, in particular for the semantics of ‘small clause’ constituents, where the predication is established without the copula.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  • Ackrill, J. L.: 1963, Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackrill, J. L. (ed.): 1987, A New Aristotle Reader, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailly, A.: 1846, Grammaire générale et raisonnée de Port-Royal, Paris.

  • Belardi, W.: 1975, Il linguaggio nella filosofia di Aristotele, Libreria K., Roma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benveniste, É.: 1966, Problèmes de linguistique générale, Gallimard, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J.: 1993, ‘The Syntax of Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, A. and M. T. Guasti: 1993, ‘Negation in Epistemic Small Clauses’, Probus 5, 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, A. and M. T. Guasti (eds.): 1995, Syntax and Semantics. Vol. XXVIII: Small Clauses, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1986, Knowledge of Language, its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D.: 1967, ‘The Logical Form of Action Sentences’, in N. Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Déchaine, R.-M.: 1993, Predicates across Categories, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Mauro, T. and A. Thornton: 1985, ‘La predicazione: teoria e applicazione all'italiano’, in Sintassi e morfologia della lingua Italina d'uso: teorie ed applicazioni descrittive, Bulzoni, Roma, pp. 487–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Rijk, L. M.: 1956, Petrus Abaelardus. Dialectica, Van Gorcum, Assen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G.: 1986, Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, B. McGuinness (ed.), Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geach, P.: 1962, Reference and Generality, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graffi, G.: 1986, ‘Una nota sui concetti di ρ\(\hat \eta \)μα e λόγος in Aristotele’, Athenaeum 74, 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guéron, J. and T. Hoekstra: 1995, ‘The Temporal Interpretation of Predication’, in A. Cardinaletti and M. T. Guasti (1995), pp. 77–107.

  • Heycock, C. B.: 1994, Layers of Predication. The Non-Lexical Syntax of Clauses, Garland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1983, ‘The Logic of Perceptual Reports: an Extensional Alternative to Situation Semantics’, Journal of Philosophy 80, 100–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1985, ‘On Semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, J.: 1989, ‘Elucidations of Meaning’, Linguistics and Philosophy 12, 465–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, N.: 1995, Logical Form. From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, O.: 1924, The Philosophy of Grammar, Allen and Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jespersen, O.: 1949, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III, Syntax, Second Volume, Allen and Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, C. H.: 1973, The Verb ‘Be’ in Ancient Greek, Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meillet, A.: 1906, ‘La phrase nominale en indo—européen’, Mémoires du la Société de Linguistique de Paris 14, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. Stuart: 1906, A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, 8th ed., Longman, London [1st ed. 1843].

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R.: 1973, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik and P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 221–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moro, A.: 1995, ‘Small Clauses with Predicative Nominals’, in A. Cardinaletti and M. T. Guasti (1995), pp. 109–132.

  • Moro, A.: 1997, The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napoli, D. J.: 1989, Predication Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T.: 1990, Events in the Semantics of English, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. H. and M. Rooth: 1983, ‘Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity’, in R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze and A. von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 361–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, S.: 1983, The Syntactic Form of Predication, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R.: 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, University Press Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T.: 1978, ‘What Was There before There Was There’, in D. Farkas (ed.), Papers from the Fourteenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 458–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T.: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, T.: 1991, ‘Small Clause Restructuring’, in R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 182–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strange, S. K.: 1992, Porphyry: On Aristotle Categories, Duckworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, P. A.: 1994, Dependent Nexus. Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E.: 1980, ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E.: 1983, ‘Against Small Clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 287–308.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lenci, A. The Structure of Predication. Synthese 114, 233–276 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005068021890

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005068021890

Keywords

Navigation