A-definites and the Discourse Status of Implicit Arguments

This paper focuses on the semantics of implicit arguments and compares it with that of explicit indefinites with which they can be truth-conditionally paraphrased. It is shown that once the discourse-potential of expressions is taken into account, the semantics of implicit arguments differs from their indefinite explicit counterparts. They are shown to be semantically identical to a particular kind of non-quantificational NP (a-definites) which are characterized by their inability to serve as antecedents for future reference. A model of this behavior of implicit arguments, it is argued, follows naturally from the underlying assumption of Discourse Representation Theory that semantic representations must include two kinds of information, a set of available discourse markers and a set of predicative conditions. Because implicit arguments satisfy a predicate's argument positions without introducing discourse markers into the Discourse Representation Structure of a sentence, they cannot serve as the antecedent of definite pronouns. When they do enter into anaphoric relations it is not through discourse markers equality clauses, but instead is the result of either lexical identification of variables (via semantic detransitivization or meaning postulates) or of an accommodation process which involves bridging and/or factoring interferences.

[1]  T. Givon.  Functionalism and Grammar , 1995 .

[2]  T. Roeper.  Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation , 1987 .

[3]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Dynamic predicate logic , 1991 .

[4]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Linguistic vs. Conceptual Sources of Implicit Agents in Sentence Comprehension , 2000 .

[5]  Jean-Pierre Koenig,et al.  Lexical Encoding of Event Participant Information , 1999, Brain and Language.

[6]  Donna Jo Napoli,et al.  Agreement and anaphora : a study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse , 1985 .

[8]  E. Williams.  Implicity arguments, the binding theory, and control , 1987 .

[9]  Jerry R. Hobbs.  Coherence and Coreference , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization , 1988 .

[11]  Sally Mcconnell-Ginet.  ADVERBS AND LOGICAL FORM: A LINGUISTICALLY REALISTIC THEORY , 1982 .

[12]  C. R.,et al.  On referring , 1950 .

[13]  Anthony R. Davis,et al.  Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon , 2000 .

[14]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Representing Discourse in Context , 1997, Handbook of Logic and Language.

[15]  Simon Garrod,et al.  Referential processes in reading: Focusing on roles and individuals. , 1990 .

[16]  B. Carpenter,et al.  Type-Logical Semantics , 1997 .

[17]  Emiel Krahmer.  Presupposition and Anaphora , 1998 .

[18]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[19]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  The Variability of Impersonal Subjects , 1995 .

[20]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[21]  C. Pollard.  Anhaphors in English and the scope of binding theory , 1992 .

[22]  Rob A. van der Sandt,et al.  Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution , 1992, J. Semant..

[23]  T. Wasow.  Anaphoric relations in English , 1972 .

[24]  Jean-Pierre Koenig.  On a tué le président! The nature of Passives and Ultra-indefinites , 1998 .

[25]  Peter Bosch,et al.  Representing and accessing focussed referents , 1988 .

[26]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  A compositional approach to discourse representation theory , 1989 .

[27]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Thematic roles and language comprehension , 1988 .