{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01583710407239819, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01809954751131222, 'mean_word_length': 5.321428571428571, '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 special status of instrumentals

It is widely known that adjuncts with different semantics roles do not always have the same syntactic status. Apparent differences have been addressed within the domain of lexical semantics (Davis 1997), but more commonly within syntax, appealing to a thematic role hierarchy where different syntactic behaviours are explained by different rankings of these roles (Foley and Van Valin 1984, Bresnan and Kanerva 1989, Alsina and Mchombo 1990 and others). In this paper we explore this issue further, presenting evidence from Austronesian and Papuan languages which shows that the instrumental is syntactically distinguished from other adjuncts, and in some senses behaves more like a term. We conclude that these data can be explained by allowing the instrumental role in certain predicates to have a higher syntactic status than other adjuncts.