{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01703800786369594, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.47457627118644, '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}}
Violable principles and typological variation

In the Government-based literature, all structural principles supplied by UG are, without exception, assumed to exert their influence over every well-formed representation. We do find cases, however, where two principles that appear to be universally applicable make opposing predictions as to the grammaticality of a given structure. To resolve such instances of principle clash, I propose a localised form of principle ranking whereby a principle may be violated in order to allow a more highly ranked principle to make its contribution to grammaticality. I show how the incorporation of ranking into a principles-based model can make useful predictions concerning typological variation within ATR harmony systems.