{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03189792663476874, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01594896331738437, 'mean_word_length': 4.773006134969325, '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}}
A deductive approach to (ad)verb placement and the functional sequence

In current (minimalist) syntactic theory, clausal architecture is dealt with in terms of a sequence of functional heads (fseq) (Pollock, 1989; Cinque, 1999). Given binary branching, each head can have at most one complement, so fseq is normally thought to be a linear sequence, i.e. a transitive, asymmetric and connected ordering of functional categories. Each functional projection can then host (at least) one phrasal expression in its specifier and one non-phrasal expression in its head. Setting aside the questions what is the exact number of functional heads, and what, precisely, is their relative ordering, this already gives rise to some empirical predictions concerning word order and semantic scope. Suppose we follow Cinque and others in assuming that adverbs are specifiers of (distinct) functional heads. Now the relative ordering of adverbs is predicted to be a linear phenomenon as well, i.e. there should be no triple of adverbs a1, a2, a3 where a1 must precede (and outscope) a2; a2, in turn must precede and outscope a3, but a3 may precede or follow a1. This is because no linear sequence of positions could accommodate such a triple of adverbs. Since a1 must precede a2 the former must be in a higher specifier than the latter, similarly for a2 and a3. Since a1 and a3 can occur in either order, there could i) be a higher specifier available for a3, but that would wrongly allow for the inverse ordering of a2 and a3, or ii) there could be a low position for a1, but that would wrongly allow a1 to follow a2. This is illustrated in (1), where the ordering possibilities which would motivate postulating extra, high/low positions for the adverbs are indicated with solid arrows, and the offending ordering possibilities that this inevitably leads to are indicated with with dashed arrows.