Lexical Distributivity and Implicit Arguments

Abstract

Popular assumptions about distributive predicates and implicit arguments interact to predict incorrect truth conditions for sentences in which a predicate takes both an implicit argument and an overt distributive argument. This paper argues that the conflict provides evidence for a particular approach to argument structure and in particular to the semantics of implicit arguments: namely, a "neo-Davidsonian" approach, in which thematic roles are analyzed as relations between events and individuals, and existentially interpreted implicit arguments do not appear in the syntax or in logical representation at all. The effect of implicit arguments is produced through the use of meaning postulates guaranteeing that any atomic event of a given type must bear the appropriate thematic relation to some individual.