{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025842696629213482, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007865168539325843, 'mean_word_length': 4.823529411764706, '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}}
Gert Webelhuth (ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program . Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1995. Pp.ix+483.

This volume thus gives an excellent impression of what typologists have been doing in the past decades. It is less clear that it is representative of what they will be doing in the coming decades, given that most authors have already reached retirement age. It appears that the influence of American linguistics in Europe is still growing, so the autochthonous European traditions are endangered, in typology as well. But since at least the Greenbergian tradition of typology is conscious of its European roots, this need not mean a radical break in the research tradition. But whatever the approaches to language typology, it now seems certain that the study of unity within the diversity of languages will keep its central place within linguistics.