Binding by implicit arguments

Abstract

Pronouns require overtly asserted antecedents, but anaphoric definite descriptions do not. A game-theoretic account of anaphoric definite descriptions is presented where the antecedent is an implicit existential argument of a predicate in a preceding sentence, whose referent must be inferred. Verifier's claim that he has a verifying strategy for this inferred existential statement explains why pronouns cannot be bound by implicit arguments, until the Falsifier demands execution of that claimed verifying strategy. It is discussed how DRT, as representational dynamic semantics, and DPL, as compositional dynamic semantics, could differentiate between asserted, inferred and presupposed indefinites to account for these differences in their dynamic binding potential. Implicit arguments are linguistically economical as they avoid scope-disambiguation, force the inferred existential to remain in focus, and constrain the accommodation of presuppositions.