{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025252525252525252, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.147286821705427, '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 the concept of "specificity" in morphological diagnosis].

The present paper deals with the term specificity. The term is analyzed with respect to its linguistic deduction, as well as its mode of application to morphological objects. We come to the conclusion that specificity is not an absolute but rather a relative term, since it is graduable. Its meaning largely depends on the conditions under which it is applied to morphological objects. When applied to morphological criteria, the term specificity is concerned in most cases with differential diagnosis; it rarely refers to diagnosis. In other words: Under certain circumstances, specific criteria may be absolute and, therefore, proving, but usually they have merely a relative meaning in the sense of indicating and delineating.