English 1: [access to assets]1 [is permit-ted]2 [only in accordance with manage-ment’s general or specific authoriza-tion;]3 [and]→
1 2 3
English 2: [access to assets]1 [is permit-ted]2 [only in accordance with manage-ment’s general or specific authoriza-tion;]3 [and]→
1 2 3
Mandarin 1 (traditional → simplified):
[只有按照管理部門一般或具體的授權]3 [才能]2 [使用資產；]1 [以及]→
Mandarin 1 (simplified → traditional):
[只有按照管理部门一般或具体的授权]3 [才能]2 [使用资产；]1 [以及]→
3 2 1
Mandarin 2 (traditional → simplified):
[只有按照管理部門一般或具體的授權]3 [才能]2 [使用資產；]1 [以及]→
Mandarin 2 (simplified → traditional):
[只有按照管理部门一般或具体的授权]3 [才能]2 [使用资产；]1 [以及]→
3 2 1
Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 2 | |||||
| Legal translation | FCPA | 10 | 3 | 3 | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Mandarin 1 | 3 | — | — | — | — | |
| Mandarin 2 | 3 | — | — | — | — | |
Difference in analysis: None
Comment on parsing: “Access to assets is permitted” is treated as two separate propositions in English, with “access to assets” as an argument of “is permitted.” The equivalent Mandarin phrase says “may use assets” with no subject, meaning “assets may be used.” For ease of comparison, the Mandarin phrase is treated as two separate propositions too, with “use assets” as an argument of “may.” That phrase would be treated as a single proposition if the parsing method was applied directly to the Mandarin version.