Predicate is one of material in Semantics study field. The definition of predicate according to Freege (2007), as cited in Oliver (2007, p.1) “…the predicate refers to a concept, which he proceeded to identify with a function from objects to truth-values…” and another definition based on Linguistics beta (2015), “Predicate is any word (or sequence of words) which (in a given single sense) can function as the predicator of a sentence.” and predicator “…is the word (sometimes a (partial) group of words) which does not belong to any of the referring expressions…describes the state or process in which the referring expressions are involved.” Predicates can be applied in any area, whether it is written area or spoken area. There are many studies that conducted on Semantics study field and discussed the case about predicates. One of the cases occurred in a spoken area. Predicates cases in the spoken area, for example, a case in everyday conversation, TV shows, radio shows, etc. This paper will explain and describes three studies that discuss three cases of predicates in the spoken area. From the three studies, there has not been found any solution to solve the problems.
One of the cases about predicates in spoken terms is about disambiguation on the interpretations of plural predication. Scontras and Goodman (2017) analyzed a naturally occurring plural predications from corpora to investigate the role of context in the disambiguation on both distributive and collective interpretations of plural predication in everyday language. Through their research, they found a role of context, but there is no evidence of an apparent class of predicates that oppose composite interpretations. Then they do a further research on the role of context and the research showed that disambiguation are affected on both the similarity of properties and the knowledgeability of the speaker. They conclude that disambiguation happens because the composite properties they mention or the evidence are unpredictable and doubtful. Speakers and listeners tend to think that it is not efficient for communication. Following the study of plural predications in everyday language, there is a study that analyzed more detailed predicates in conversation.
Based on the case, a study is conducted on analyzing a sentence that includes predicate ‘ready’ is by Gauker (2012). He examined incomplete predicates that have different or unique logical properties for instance, “ready” or in a sentence becomes “Tipper is ready”. The example “Tipper is ready” mean that ‘Tipper’ is ready for something or ready to do something, but if the sentence becomes, “Tipper is ready for something” it does not means that ‘Tipper’ is ready or always ready. From the research, he found that there are several unsuccessful semantics approaches that accommodate this logical equity to the incomplete predicates. Therefore, Gauker aims to accommodate an accurate semantics for incomplete predicates by defining the contexts as forms that consist of an element named a proposition set that contains atomic scheme and negations of an atomic scheme. He claimed that the sentence, “Tipper is ready” is correct under the conditions of the scheme that have been set for the context. Also, in this context, the contents of the relevant framework to a dialogue should have interpreted by the connection to the relevance objective rather than focusing on what the speaker thinks.
From the two cases that were studied above, we can see that both studies are analyzed a problem in conversation. The first study analyzed disambiguation in conversation, the second study analyzed particular predicates that affects semantics approaches. To expand a study about predicates that affects semantics approaches, a study on Iranian language was conducted in Russia in 2013.
Lyutikova and Tatevosov (2013) evaluated syntax and semantics sense of complex predicates in Ossetian, an Iranian language that spoken in the Central Caucasus because Ossetian is a language that has complex predicates in the causative-inchoative transposition. This condition then utilized by Lyutikova and Tatevosov to examined a case about the alternation. It is blocked by telicizing prefixes if the component of non-verbal predicates does not eventive. To solve the case, eventive and non-eventive Ossetian language non-verbal element were distinguished in different ways. The research shows that eventivity or non-eventivity decides which attachment is going to use for telicizing prefixes, and it causing an obstacle to the spell-out of the entire form in different ways. As a result, both causative and inchoative prefixed composition can be spelt out using identical set but only for one class of predicates that included.
To sum up, from the three studies on the case of predicates in spoken area, we can find that there is no solution to solve the cases. The first study that analyzed disambiguation on the interpretations of plural predication only gave the result of the study that the problem happens because the composite properties they mention are unpredictable and doubtful. The second study examined incomplete predicate which is ‘ready’ and becomes confusing when the predicate is included in a sentence such as, “Tipper is ready”. The result also did not give a solution to the problem, it was only explained that the contents in a dialogue should have interpreted by the connection to the relevance objective rather than focusing on what the speaker thinks. The last study evaluated alternation case that was blocked because the predicates do not eventive. This study only gives an explanation that the prefixed structure can be spelt only for one class predicates. As a note, Scontras and Goodman (2017) follow the Bayesian Rational Speech Act framework and validating a new methodology for measuring the interpretation. While Gauker (2012) defines the contexts as structures that contain a proposition set and the last study by Lyutikova and Tatevosov (2013) using eventive and non-eventive analysis. Further study is needed to find the solution to the case of the three studies above.