{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.119565217391305, '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}}
The diachrony of morphosyntactic alignment

With morphological and syntactic argument properties, 
some arguments behave alike (i.e., they align with each 
other) while others do not. Such alignment patterns 
have received significant attention in the literature, 
but claims as to their origin and development are sometimes 
difficult to assess, due to scant actual data. This 
paper surveys the main hypotheses proposed in early 
and recent work on the topic, focusing on alignment 
type change and on major alignment types (ergativity, 
accusativity, and split intransitivity) of morphological 
properties, with some remarks on syntactic properties. 
The survey shows that alignment type change may 
often occur when clauses denoting low transitivity are 
reanalyzed as clauses of either higher or lower syntactic 
valency, sometimes even introducing a partition in the 
verbal lexicon (occasionally being conditioned by 
semantic, pragmatic, or structural factors), or are 
extended from low‐transitivity predicates to most bivalent 
predicates. Lastly, alignment type change can be 
either functionally motivated or not.