← Sentence 40
← last issue: Sentence 30
FCPA Sentence 50: § 78dd-1(e)(1)
→ Sentence 60
→ next issue: Sentence 90
English 1: [Such a presumption]1 [may be rebutted]2 [by a preponderance of the evidence.]3
1 2 3
English 2: [Such a presumption may be rebutted]1 [by a preponderance of the evidence.]2
1 2
Turkish 1: [Böyle bir varsayımın aksi,]1 [bir kanıtın karşı bir kanıta oranla ispat gücünün üstünlüğü ile]3 [kanıtlanabilir.]2
1 {3} 2
Turkish 2: [Böyle bir varsayımın aksi,]1 [bir kanıtın karşı bir kanıta oranla ispat gücünün üstünlüğü ile]2 [kanıtlanabilir.]1
{2} 1
Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 2 | |||||
| Legal translation | FCPA | 50 | ② | ① | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Turkish 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | |
| Turkish 2 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | |
Difference in analysis: In “English 1” and “Russian 1,” “presumption” in [1] is seen as a process nominal with an argument (≈ “presuming such a thing”). So it’s treated as the predicate of a separate proposition. In “English 2” and “Russian 2,” “presumption” is seen as a result nominal with a modifier (≈ “such a view”). So it’s not treated as the predicate of a separate proposition.
Reason: The distinction between a process nominal and a result nominal is useful for our parsing method. On the one hand, it avoids a plethora of separate segments for nominals without argument structure – like “love” in “We all need love.” On the other hand, it treats a nominal with argument structure as the predicate of a separate proposition – like “love” in “[My love for you] is boundless.” As useful as this distinction is, there are borderline cases where it isn’t clear-cut. In this study, the distinction is applied consistently to all language versions of a given sentence. But there can be some inconsistency in how it’s applied in different sentences, or even in the same sentence as analyzed at different times.
Consequence: The new analysis would lead to a complexity count of 1 rather than 2 subordinate propositions in the original English version of the sentence.