{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034623217922606926, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013577732518669382, 'mean_word_length': 5.219409282700422, '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}}
Language and Linguistics

A distinction is made between the questions: (1) what is a human language ? (2) what is language ? The first is scientific in the sense that research strategies can be brought to bear just as one might study some physical organ, while the second is a question of conceptual analysis. Six directions of inquiry into the first question are considered, namely (a) structural principles, (b) physical mechanisms, (c) manner of use, (d) ontogenetic development, (e) phylogenetic development, and (/) integration into cognitive system. So far, important results yielding principles of explanatory power have only come out of work in (a) and (d), in particular with respect to 'universal grammar', which determines the essential nature of human language. The second question, about the relationship of human language to other semiotic systems, is really about the usefulness of certain metaphors and analogies. Recent experiments with chimpanzees and other species do not demonstrate, despite what some researchers claim, that interspecific differences in language capacity are quantitative; the fact that an ape can use symbols correlated with symbols of a sign language does not necessarily mean that he is using the sign language. Even if it did, that would leave the problems concerning human language exactly where they now stand. In fact, the differences appear to be qualitative; they seem to reflect a different type of intellectual organisation.