← last issue: Sentence 10

FCPA Sentence 20: § 78m(b)(6)

→ next issue: Sentence 30

English 1: [An issuer]4 [which demon-strates]1 [good faith efforts]2 [to use such influence]3 [shall be conclusively pre-sumed]4 [to have complied with the requirements of paragraph (2).]5

{1}MOD4  {2}ARG1  {3}ARG2  4            5ARG4

English 2: [An issuer]4 [which demon-strates]1 [good faith efforts]2 [to use such influence]3 [shall be conclusively pre-sumed]4 [to have complied with the requirements of paragraph (2).]5

{1}MOD4  {2}ARG1  {3}ARG2  4            5ARG4

Japanese 1: [かかる影響力を行使する際に]3 [誠実な尽力姿勢を]2 [示す]1 [発行者は、]4 [第(2)項目の諸条件に準拠したと]5 [確定的にみなされる。]4

{3Δ}ADJ2  {2}ARG1  {1}MOD4  {5}ARG4  4          

Japanese 1: [かかる影響力を行使する際に]3 [誠実な尽力姿勢を]2 [示す]1 [発行者は、]4 [第(2)項目の諸条件に準拠したと]5 [確定的にみなされる。]4

{3Δ}ADJ2  {2}ARG1  {1}MOD4  {5}ARG4  4          


Mode
Text / Speech
Sentence #		Subordinations
English 1English 2
Legal translationFCPA2044

Target language		Reordering
Σi=1n-1 Σj=i+1n     I(xj<xi)		± Nestings
  { }                  {{ }}                {{{ }}}		Semantic changes
Δ
Japanese 144——1
Japanese 244——1

Difference in analysis: None

Comment on parsing: In both “Japanese 1” and “Japanese 2,” [5] is treated as a separate proposition nested in [4] – like saying “[an issuer shall be conclusively presumed]4 [to have complied with the requirements of paragraph (2)]5,” as in English. But [5] in Japanese can also be seen as forming a single proposition with the first part of [4] – like saying “[it shall be conclusively presumed]4 [that an issuer has complied with the requirements of paragraph (2)]5.” That reading wouldn’t treat [5] as nested, so it would bring the count for changes in single nestings down from 4 to 3 in the Japanese translation.