{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030697674418604652, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018604651162790697, 'mean_word_length': 4.94475138121547, '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}}
The Perfect, Contingency, and Temporal Subordination

This has led to a number of proposals that single out the present perfect for special treatment, introducing new concepts specially devised to handle the contrast of the present perfect with the simple past and past perfect. For instance, two varieties of the EXTENDED-NOW theory (Bennett & Partee (1978), McCoard (1978), Vlach (1993)) propose that the present perfect introduces a timespan which contains the event and which either runs up to or includes now. Any adverbial modifier used with the present perfect must be able to modify this extended-now timespan. CURRENT-RELEVANCE theories (Twaddell (1968), Comrie (1976)) claim that the event must have some relevance to now in order for the present perfect to be used. These approaches in general make reasonable predictions about the present perfect, but they suffer from two problems: they are not easy to formalize, and they offer little in the way of explanation for the odd behavior of the present perfect or a connection between it and the rest of the language.