{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.037340619307832425, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012295081967213115, 'mean_word_length': 5.069060773480663, '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}}
PURPOSE EXPRESSIONS AND CHARACTERIZATION OF VOLITIVE NPs

It is noteworthy that purpose adverbials in English headed by in order to have often been employed, almost as a matter of fact, as a test-frame to diagnose a feature such as 'agentive' (e.g. Gruber 1967) or 'volitive' (e.g. Cruse 1973). Conceivably, this is due to a tacit assumption that it is part of the general condition of these sentences with in order to (henceforth referred to as'PEs') that their matrix subjects represent the purposer, endowed with deliberate intent and volition, who willfully initiates the purposeful act described. Faraci 1974 allows the irrelevancy of volitionality in case the matrix clause contains a conditional predicate (necessary, sufficient, need) or certain modals, but he too claims the correlation otherwise of an in order to clause (his term 'rationale clause') with volitionality; as he puts it, in order to clauses 'connote motivation and, hence, attribute volitionality to the matrix subject' (54). When viewed from the vantage point of the grammar of PEs, however, these assumptions on volitionality of the matrix subjects and/or predicates of PEs prove to be of doubtful value. Articulating the problem in terms of the verbal feature 'voluntative', King provides ample examples testifying to the fact that 'the idea of intention and purpose seems as if it ought to be consistent only with voluntative verb expressions, but the most that can be said grammatically is that nonvoluntative verbs resist being modified by purpose expressions and also resist incorporation into purpose expressions' (1970: 10). In cognizance of the problem, Dillon (1974: 221) suggests that volitionality is not a 'feature' but an 'abbreviation' of an assumption entailed (or presuppposed) by saying certain things. Thus, to Dillon, the well-formedness of PEs is related not to whether a given NP or verbal expression is associated with a certain feature, but to whether the referent of the matrix subject is assumed by the speaker-hearer to be 'able' (and 'ablenot') to engage in the act expressed by the matrix clause. Sentences like the following, therefore, would not be marked as contradictory in his analysis.