← Sentence 30
← last issue: Sentence 20
Sir Ken Robinson Sentence 40: 12:48
→ next issue: Sentence 50
English 1: [If you look at the interactions of a human brain,]1 [as we heard yes-terday from a number of presenta-tions,]2 [intelligence is wonderfully inter-active.]3
1 2 3
English 2: [If you look at the interactions of a human brain,]1 [as we heard yes-terday from a number of presenta-tions,]2 [intelligence is wonderfully inter-active.]3
1 2 3
Hungarian 1: [Ha az emberi agy interak-cióit szemléljük,]1 [ahogy hallottuk teg-nap számos előadásban,]2 [az intelligen-cia csodálatosan interaktív.]3
1 2 3
Hungarian 2: [Ha az emberi agy interak-cióit szemléljük,]1 [ahogy hallottuk teg-nap számos előadásban,]2 [az intelligen-cia csodálatosan interaktív.]3
1 2 3
Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 2 | |||||
| Subtitle translation | Sir Ken Robinson | 40 | ② | ① | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Hungarian 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Hungarian 2 | — | — | — | — | — | |
Difference in analysis: In both “English 1” and “Hungarian 1,” [2] is seen as an adjunct to [3]. In “English 2” and “Hungarian 2,” [2] is seen as functionally independent.
Reason: It’s possible to see the sentence above as basically making one assertion – that “intelligence is wonderfully interactive.” It’s also possible to see the sentence as making two assertions, as if [2] and [3] said: “we heard yesterday from a number of presentations that intelligence is wonderfully interactive.” Recall that a statement or thought which the speaker or writer identifies with doesn’t shift perspective, so it’s treated in this study as functionally independent. This second reading means seeing [2] and [3] in the above sentence as saying “intelligence is wonderfully interactive, and we heard that yesterday from a number of presentations.” This reading is made more difficult by [1], which is an adjunct only to [3] and not to [2].
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.