{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03391572456320658, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1257861635220126, '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}}
Term or Phrase Usage and Contextual Meaning: A Reexamination of Semantic Issues in Translation

It has been observed that “words do not have meanings but rather meanings have words.” But even more, words and phrases, usually thought of as the basic units of meaning, actually should be seen as having only usages within contexts. These contexts themselves are the elements of communication that activate mental and bodily states and processes, and can be properly thought of as the construal of meaning. Sometimes these contexts of usage are shaped by phonological or grammatical patterns (see B. Bergen), sometimes by sociological factors such as reciprocity (see E. Goffman), and of course most commonly by lexical (usually radial) patterns and categories (traditionally presented as “semantic domains”). Cognitive linguists (e.g., Lakoff, Turner) have been hinting at something like this for a long time, but a clear restatement of what constitutes semantics is overdue.