Understood arguments: a semantic/pragmatic approach

Abstract In English a range of verbs can occur with either an overt argument or one that is left implicit, for example eat . To account for when an argument can be left implicit, various researchers (e.g. Fillmore, 1986) have argued that verbs have to be represented as having certain of their arguments marked for omission. In this paper it is argued that postulating that individual verbs have certain of their arguments marked for omission does not in fact account for the behaviour of verbs with regard to understood arguments. Instead, I propose that we can give a semantic/pragmatic explanation of when arguments can be left implicit. Arguments can only be left implicit if their interpretation is constrained in particular ways, because the constraints make the interpretation of the implicit argument immediately recoverable. When there is no constraint on the interpretation of an argument, leaving it implicit could lead the addressee to a misinterpretation, and Relevance considerations would rule this out.