{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0371900826446281, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03856749311294766, 'mean_word_length': 5.058333333333334, '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}}
A rebuttal of essentialist sociolinguistics

The term 'essentialist sociolinguistics' is my own term. Essentialism itself, however, can be traced back to Popper (1945, 1957, 1959,1972), who uses the label in his critical argument against Aristotle. Aristotle claims that all things have their form or essences (1983). The essence of a thing is something like its internal source of change and motion (Popper 1945). It is that very Aristotelian philosophical standpoint that Popper refers to as 'essentialism'. For Aristotle (Popper 1945) the term that is to be defined is the name of the essence of a thing, and the defining formula the description of that essence. Popper summarizes Aristotle's position in the following way: