{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023968042609853527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.709821428571429, '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}}
Headedness and exocentric compounding

Semantic headedness typically serves as the primary criterion for compound endocentricity, i.e. whether a compound has a head. The semantic head is often defined as the hyperonym from which the denotation of the compound is derived, with exocentric compounds being those whose denotation is not a subclass of that of their head element. Headedness, so defined, leads us to analyze every non-compositional compound as exocentric. We explore the boundaries between semantic exocentricity and non-compositionality using established diagnostics in order to decide whether a semantic characterization of headedness is valid, and to determine whether exocentricity and non-compositionality coincide. Assuming a syntactic model of morphological combinatorics we show that exocentricity must be defined configurationally, occurring when the structure of a compound modifies an external entity, frequently instantiated by an empty noun. Hence exocentricity is not the absence of a head, but the realization of the compound's head outside its internal structure. Non-compositionality, in turn, derives from how the root of each constituent member of a compound is compositionally or idiosyncratically interpreted. Finally, we put forth a new typological distribution of exocentric compounds, discriminating real exocentric compounds (bahuvrihi and dvandva) from compounds that are commonly, but wrongly, defined as exocentric (e.g. deverbal and de-prepositional compounds).