{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029459901800327332, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.6521739130434785, '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}}
Hug a tree: deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy

Any theory attempting to account for morphological phenomena will, of necessity, make reference to morphological features. Indeed, purely descriptive accounts employ morphological features, as the very notion of a "paradigm" is defined by cross-classifying different varieties of features, e.g. number and person. In a theory where morphological operations are an autonomous subpart of the derivation, such features acquire status beyond that of a descriptive convenience. They become linguistic primitives, manipulated by the rules of word-formation.