{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024918743228602384, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.703703703703703, '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}}
Prepositional phrases as subjects and objects

The positions of subject and object in simple active sentences, and object of a preposition are normally filled by NP's but they can also be filled by PP's. There are reasons for analyzing such PP's as just PP's and not as PP's embedded in NP's. Yet such an analysis appears to be problematic for the analysis of raising and passive sentences assumed within the government-binding (GB) framework, which is formulated with exclusive reference to NP's. Assuming that the basic mechanisms at work in sentences with PP's in typical NP positions are identical to those in sentences with NP's, PP's must sometimes require Case to avoid a violation of the Case Filter. It is possible to incorporate this idea into the GB framework given a particular view of Case and Case assignment, and a revised Case Filter. The analysis receives some further support from a range of related data.