{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04741379310344827, 'fraction_numerical': 0.020474137931034482, 'mean_word_length': 5.23489932885906, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Indefinite topics and the syntax of nominals in Italian and Greek

The aim of the present paper is to understand a contrast in the interpretation of Clitic Left Dislocated (CLLD-ed) indefinites in Italian and Greek. In a nutshell, Greek CLLDindefinites systematically take wide scope over clause internal intensional predicates or quantifiers while their Italian counterparts may be interpreted either within or outside the scope of clause internal operators. Consider (1)-(2): both examples involve a Clitic Left Dislocated (CLLD-ed) indefinite. A known fact about the Greek example in (1) (from Alexopoulou & Kolliakou, 2002) is that the indefinite resists the so-called opaque or de dicto interpretation (Iatridou, 1995; Alexopoulou & Kolliakou, 2002). Thus, only (1c) is a felicitous continuation of (1a); (1b) which involves a non-referential interpretation of the CLLD-ed antecedent is not felicitous (as indicated by 6=).