← last issue: Sentence 50
Paris Agreement Sentence 60: Article 6(4)(c)
→ Sentence 70
→ next issue: Sentence 80
English 1: [To contribute]1 [to the reduc-tion of emission levels in the host Party,]2 [which will benefit from mitigation activi-ties]3 [resulting]4 [in emission reduc-tions]5 [that can also be used by another Party]6 [to fulfil its]7 [nationally deter-mined]8 [contribution;]7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {8}
English 2: [To contribute]1 [to the reduc-tion of emission levels in the host Party,]2 [which will benefit from mitigation activi-ties]3 [resulting]4 [in emission reduc-tions]5 [that can also be used by another Party]6 [to fulfil its]7 [nationally deter-mined]8 [contribution;]7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {8}
Hungarian 1: [hozzájáruljon]1 [a kibocsá-tási szintek csökkentéséhez a fogadó Részes Félnél,]2 [amely élvezni fogja]3 [a kibocsátáscsökkentést]5 [eredményező]4 [csökkentési tevékenységek eredmé-nyét,]3 [amelyet egy másik Részes Fél is felhasználhat]6 [a]7 [nemzetileg megha-tározott]8 [hozzájárulása teljesítéséhez;]7
1 2 3 {5} {4} 6Δ {8} 7
Hungarian 2: [hozzájáruljon]1 [a kibocsá-tási szintek csökkentéséhez a fogadó Részes Félnél,]2 [amely élvezni fogja]3 [a kibocsátáscsökkentést]5 [eredményező]4 [csökkentési tevékenységek eredmé-nyét,]3 [amelyet egy másik Részes Fél is felhasználhat]6 [a]7 [nemzetileg megha-tározott]8 [hozzájárulása teljesítéséhez;]7
1 2 3 {5} {4} 6 {8} 7
Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 2 | |||||
| Legal translation | Paris Agreement | 60 | ⑦ | ⑥ | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Hungarian 1 | 2 | 2 | — | — | ① | |
| Hungarian 2 | 2 | 2 | — | — | ⓪ | |
Difference in analysis: In “English 1,” [6] is seen as modifying “emission reductions” in [5]. In “Hungarian 1,” [6] is seen as modifying the equivalent of “the result of mitigation activities” in the isolated part of [3]. In both “English 2” and “Hungarian 2,” [6] is seen as semantically independent.
Reason: The distinction between a defining modifier and a non‑defining modifier is generally clear in English, from prosody and punctuation, when what’s being modified is a definite noun, like “my brother.” For example, if a speaker says “That’s my brother who lives in New York,” with no pause before “who,” they’re implying they have at least one other brother. If they say “That’s my brother, who lives in New York,” with a pause before “who,” they’re implying they only have one brother. But the line between a defining and a non-defining modifier can be thinner when what’s being modified is an indefinite noun, like “a brother.” For example, if a speaker says “I have a brother who lives in New York,” with no pause before “who,” it’s not clear if they have only one brother or more.
In the sentence analyzed twice above, the phrase “that can also be used by another Party” in [6] can be seen as a modifier defining the type of emission reductions that will result from mitigation activities, as in the first analysis. With this reading, our parsing method treats [6] as a subordinate proposition modifying an element in its parent. The same phrase can also be seen as a non-defining statement about emission reductions resulting from mitigation activities, as in the newer analysis. With this reading, [6] is treated as semantically independent. This second reading is more suitable to the context.
Consequences:
1. The new analysis would lead to a complexity count of 6 rather than 7 subordinate propositions in the original English version of the sentence.
2. The new analysis would lead to a count of 0 rather than 1 for changes in semantic relations in the Hungarian translation.