{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015170670037926675, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.336, '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}}
Linguistic Green Lines in Lebanon

Since the dawn of its history as a republic, Lebanon has been the theatre of diverse strategies in which language was instrumentalized in terms of collectively accepted dividing frontiers. Some strategies were spontaneous, while others were planned and, in times of conflict, backed by militia forces. Three such strategies are examined here: the national identity issue as it has been staged by language planners defending the thesis that Lebanese is not Arabic; the regional linguistic differences in Lebanese as they got invested with charged political meaning during the war, finally mapping onto real green lines; and the power dynamics regulating the relation between nationals and peripheral minor Others such as non-Arab migrant workers or gypsies.