English 1: [For example, Nalini Ambady,]2 [a researcher at Tufts University,]1 [shows]2 [that]6 [when people watch 30-second soundless clips]3 [of real physi-cian-patient interactions,]4 [their judg-ments of the physician’s niceness]5 [pre-dict]6 [whether or not that physician will be sued.]7
{1} 2 {3} {4} {5} 6 7
English 2: [For example, Nalini Ambady,]2 [a researcher at Tufts University,]1 [shows]2 [that]6 [when people watch 30-second soundless clips]3 [of real physi-cian-patient interactions,]4 [their judg-ments of the physician’s niceness]5 [pre-dict]6 [whether or not that physician will be sued.]7
{1} 2 {3} {4} {5} 6 7
Japanese 1: [たとえば]2 [タフツ大学の]1 [ナリニ・アンバディは]2 [医者と患者の間の実際のやり取りを撮した]4 [30秒の無音のビデオを見ただけで]3 [医者が訴えられることになるかどうかを]7 [その医者の感じ良さから]5Δ [予想できることを]6 [示しました]2
{1} {4} {3} {7} {5Δ} {6} 2
Japanese 2: [たとえば]2 [タフツ大学の]1 [ナリニ・アンバディは]2 [医者と患者の間の実際のやり取りを撮した]4 [30秒の無音のビデオを見ただけで]3 [医者が訴えられることになるかどうかを]7 [その医者の感じ良さから]5Δ [予想できることを]6 [示しました]2
{1} {4} {3} {7} {5Δ} {6} 2
Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 2 | |||||
| Subtitle translation | Amy Cuddy | 10 | ⑥ | ⑤ | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Japanese 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Japanese 2 | — | — | — | — | — | |
Difference in analysis: In “English 1” and “Japanese 1,” [6] is seen as an instance of reported speech or thought. In “English 2” and “Japanese 2,” [6] is seen as functionally independent.
Reason: In reported speech or thought, perspective is shifted away from the speaker or writer. Our parsing method marks the main proposition expressing reported speech or thought accordingly, with with a relation label. In contrast, speech or thought which the speaker or writer agrees with involves no shift of perspective. Our method marks the main proposition expressing such speech or thought as functionally independent. This distinction is useful, since it helps ensure identical treatment of functionally independent propositions, whether they’re syntactically subordinate or independent. The speaker’s use of the verb “shows” in [2] above suggests that he agrees with the content of the rest of the sentence. So it seems appropriate to mark the main proposition expressing that content, [6], as functionally independent, as in the new analysis.
Consequence: The new analysis would lead to a complexity count of 5 rather than 6 subordinate propositions in the original English version of the sentence.