← Sentence 100
← last issue: Sentence 90
FCPA Sentence 110: § 78dd-2(f)(1)
→ Sentence 120
→ next issue: Sentence 130
English 1: [In any action]1 [brought]2 [under the applicable provisions of this section,]3 [there shall be a rebuttable presumption]4 [that conduct,]8 [which is specified in a request by a domestic concern]5 [and for which the Attorney General has issued an opinion]6 [that such conduct is in conformity with the Department of Justice’s present enforce-ment policy,]7 [is in compliance with the preceding provisions of this section.]8
1 2 3 4
{5} {6} {7} 8
English 2: [In any action]1 [brought]2 [under the applicable provisions of this section,]3 [there shall be a rebuttable presumption]4 [that conduct,]8 [which is specified in a request by a domestic concern]5 [and for which the Attorney General has issued an opinion]6 [that such conduct is in conformity with the Department of Justice’s present enforce-ment policy,]7 [is in compliance with the preceding provisions of this section.]8
1 2 3 4
{5} {6} {7} 8
Mandarin 1 (traditional → simplified):
[對於]1 [根據本條有關條款]3 [採取的]2 [任何行動，]1 [必須可以反證推定，]4Δ [國內業務在詢問中提出的]5 [行為，]8 [如果經司法部長發佈意見認為]6 [這種行為符合司法部的現行執法政策，]7 [就是符合本條的上述規定。]8
Mandarin 1 (simplified → traditional):
[对于]1 [根据本条有关条款]3 [采取的]2 [任何行动，]1 [必须可以反证推定，]4Δ [国内业务在询问中提出的]5 [行为，]8 [如果经司法部长发布意见认为]6 [这种行为符合司法部的现行执法政策，]7 [就是符合本条的上述规定。]8
{3} {2} 1 4Δ
{5} {6Δ} {7} 8Δ
Mandarin 1 (traditional → simplified):
[對於]1 [根據本條有關條款]3 [採取的]2 [任何行動，]1 [必須可以反證推定，]4Δ [國內業務在詢問中提出的]5 [行為，]8 [如果經司法部長發佈意見認為]6 [這種行為符合司法部的現行執法政策，]7 [就是符合本條的上述規定。]8
Mandarin 1 (simplified → traditional):
[对于]1 [根据本条有关条款]3 [采取的]2 [任何行动，]1 [必须可以反证推定，]4Δ [国内业务在询问中提出的]5 [行为，]8 [如果经司法部长发布意见认为]6 [这种行为符合司法部的现行执法政策，]7 [就是符合本条的上述规定。]8
{3} {2} 1 4Δ
{5} {6Δ} {7} 8Δ
Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 2 | |||||
| Legal translation | FCPA | 110 | 7 | 7 | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Mandarin 1 | 3 | 3 | — | — | 3 | |
| Mandarin 2 | 3 | 3 | — | — | 3 | |
Difference in analysis: In “English 1” and “Mandarin 1,” [7] is marked as a semantic argument of [6]. In “English 2” and “Mandarin 2,” [7] is marked as an instance of reported speech or thought whose perspective is established in [6].
Reason: Reported speech or thought involves a shift of perspective away from the speaker or writer (Spronck & Nikitina 2019). When the perspective of the reported speech or thought is established in a functionally independent proposition, the reported speech or thought itself can feel more functionally independent within that perspective. This is the case for [8], whose perspective is established in [4] and which is marked as an instance of reported speech or thought in both analyses. But when the perspective of the reported speech or thought is established in a functionally subordinate proposition, the reported speech or thought can feel more functionally dependent. This is the case for [7], which is an instance of reported speech or thought, but is instead marked as a semantic argument of [6] in “English 1” and “Mandarin 1.”
Consequence: None for values recorded
Other comment on parsing: In both English and Mandarin, [3] is seen as providing semantically non-typical information. So it’s treated as a separate proposition. [3] could also be grouped together with [2]. That would lead to a complexity count of 6 rather than 7 subordinate propositions for the original English version of the sentence.