{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02464788732394366, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.053191489361702, '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}}
[Are we really talking about psychic symptoms?].

To conceive psychic symptoms as a linguistic sign stemmed from binding a form (the significant) with a meaning (the signified) assumes that rules binding signs of mental illnesses are identical to rules binding linguistic signs, but above all, that those rules are extant. The author exposes that they are not, no rules permitting to associate a linguistic form to a meaning are extant. Consequently the interpretation of psychic symptoms based on the equivalence with linguistic scheme is built on a twisted argument.