← last issue: Sentence 80
Paris Agreement Sentence 90: Article 7(10)
→ Sentence 100
→ next issue: Sentence 120
English 1: [Each Party should,]2 [as ap-propriate,]1 [submit]2 [and update peri-odically an adaptation communication,]3 [which may include its priorities, imple-mentation and support needs, plans and actions,]4 [without creating any addi-tional burden for developing country Parties.]5
{1} 2 3 4 5
English 2: [Each Party should,]2 [as ap-propriate,]1 [submit]2 [and update peri-odically an adaptation communication,]3 [which may include its priorities, imple-mentation and support needs, plans and actions,]4 [without creating any addi-tional burden for developing country Parties.]5
{1} 2 3 4 5
Japanese 1: [各締約国は、]2,3 [適当な場合には、]1 [開発途上締約国に追加の負担を生じさせることなく、]5 [適応に関する情報]2,3 [（自国の優先事項、実施及び支援の必要性、計画並びに行動を含めることができる。）]4 [を定期的に提出し、]2Δ [及び更新すべきである。]3Δ
{1} {5} {4} 2Δ 3Δ
Japanese 2: [各締約国は、]2,3 [適当な場合には、]1 [開発途上締約国に追加の負担を生じさせることなく、]5 [適応に関する情報]2,3 [（自国の優先事項、実施及び支援の必要性、計画並びに行動を含めることができる。）]4 [を定期的に提出し、]2Δ [及び更新すべきである。]3Δ
{1} {5} {4} 2Δ 3Δ
Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 2 | |||||
| Legal translation | Paris Agreement | 90 | 2 | 2 | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Japanese 1 | 5 | 2 | — | — | 2 | |
| Japanese 2 | 5 | 2 | — | — | 2 | |
Difference in analysis: None
Comment on parsing: In “English 1” and “English 2,” and in “Japanese 1” and “Japanese 2,” [4] is seen as functionally independent. But it’s arguably less so in the Japanese translation, where it’s nested between the root and the bound case ending of a noun. This is typical of phrases headed by the equivalent of “including” or other forms of “include” in Japanese. On the one hand, such a phrase can seem like a functionally subordinate modifier of a head noun – a reading strengthened by its position between the root and the case ending of that noun. On the other hand, it can have the form of a separate sentence, blocked off in parentheses and even including a finally period, as in the Japanese translation above. This is a prime example of a gray area in the functional status of propositions, showing how a proposition can be seen as functionally independent and still appear subordinate to another, higher-ranking assertion. For ease of comparison between language versions, such phrases are always treated in the same way in the original English and in each other language – as functionally subordinate when the English phrase is headed by a more parenthetical element like “including,” and as functionally independent when the English sounds more like an independent assertion, as in the sentence above. But the distinction can be fuzzy.