{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022686025408348458, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023593466424682397, 'mean_word_length': 5.162011173184357, '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}}
5. Individual symbols and diacritics

In preparation for the IPA Kiel Convention in 1989, this report summarizes preliminary discussions of possible improvements and changes to individual symbols and diacritics in the International Phonetic Alphabet. It details responses to a questionnaire sent out on 22 October 1988. Specific questions were suggested by a number of sources: my own paper (Henton 1987), reactions to that paper, and from discussions with other phoneticians. The questionnaire was written with a view to eliciting simple and democratic input, rather than to promoting certain symbols or suggestions over others. It was sent to 38 members of the Association who rated the section on ‘Individual symbols and diacritics’ 1–5 (on a scale of 17, with 1 being highest preference) in their reponses to the invitation to revise the International Phonetic Association's alphabet. Eighty members originally replied to the call for input to the Kiel meeting, so the 38 who placed this section high in their preferences are a good portion (47%) of members actively concerned with this Convention.