draft of November 2011

dealt with in a language. The point we are making here is that the weakening of the definite
semantics of the Italian lo/la is due to the obligatoriness of DPs in Italian. Note further that
these non-referential uses involve clear verbal arguments, arguing against an intrinsic link
between D, argumenthood and referentiality in Italian as proposed by Longobardi (1994). If
lo were to be analysed as involving less structure, e.g. as a np, the immediate question is why
an NP argument is possible at all in Italian all of a sudden and how it is different from Greek.
(77) Gianni sta cercando un idraulico ma non lo trova
Gianni is looking-for a plumber but cannot find one.
Note that even Italian, does not universally allow ”definite” pronouns to support property
anaphora. For instance, when the object is plural, as in (78), the plural of lo/la, is not
acceptable. Instead, the clitic ne needs to be used. 29
(78) a. Q: Maria ha trovato delle aiutanti?
Q: Maria has found of helpers?
Has Maria found helpers?
b. A: No, ?le/ne ha trovate
A: No, them.cl/ne has found
No she has not found.
(79) Gianni sta cercando degli aiutanti per l’ufficio ma non ?li/ne
Gianni has-been looking-for of
trova
find-3sg
helpers for the-office but not them.cl/ne
Gianni has been looking for assistants for the office but cannot find any.
We will speculate in section 4.4. on the effect of number, but, for the moment, suffice to say
that Italian systematically involves a D element even for arguments that are not referential.
This D element may even be an apparently definite D like lo/la or an indefinite one like
ne. Greek pronouns do not support property anaphora. Instead, the relevant readings are
obtained through IAD which involves NP ellipsis.
29 Notice that the plural le can be used in (78) if the answer is positive, but it forces a discourse transparent
reading,which is not the relevant one here.
42