{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02263374485596708, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00823045267489712, 'mean_word_length': 4.597701149425287, '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}}
On an alleged argument for the Proper Binding Condition

This paper investigates a paradigm of questions with raising adjectives:  How likely to win is John? vs. *How likely to be a riot is there? It has been claimed that the paradigm argues for Fiengo’s (1977) Proper Binding Condition. This paper shows that the argument cannot be maintained once the paradigm is extended to sentences like How likely is there to be a riot? An explanation in terms of Relativized Minimaliy is offered.