← Sentence 40
← last issue: Sentence 10

Amy Cuddy Sentence 50: 08:55

→ Sentence 60
→ next issue: Sentence 70

English 1: [You want the person who’s powerful and assertive and domi-nant,]1 [but not very stress-reactive,]2 [the person who’s laid back.]3

1            2MOD1  3MOD1

English 2: [You want the person who’s powerful and assertive and domi-nant,]1 [but not very stress-reactive,]2 [the person who’s laid back.]3

1            2MOD1  3MOD1

Mandarin 1 (traditional → simplified):
[你會希望]Χ [那個人是充滿力量，肯定果斷，非常強勢]1 [但也不會對壓力反應過度，]2 [不能輕鬆以對]3

Mandarin 1 (simplified → traditional):
[你会希望]Χ [那个人是充满力量，肯定果断，非常强势]1 [但也不会对压力反应过度，]2 [不能轻松以对]3

XΔPROM  1ΔARGX  2ΔARGX  3ΔARGX

Mandarin 2 (traditional → simplified):
[你會希望]Χ [那個人是充滿力量，肯定果斷，非常強勢]1 [但也不會對壓力反應過度，]2 [不能輕鬆以對]3

Mandarin 2 (simplified → traditional):
[你会希望]Χ [那个人是充满力量，肯定果断，非常强势]1 [但也不会对压力反应过度，]2 [不能轻松以对]3

XΔPROM  1ΔARGX  2ΔARGX  3ΔARGX


Mode
Text / Speech
Sentence #		Subordinations
English 1English 2
Subtitle translationAmy Cuddy5022

Target language		Reordering
Σi=1n-1 Σj=i+1n     I(xj<xi)		± Nestings
  { }                  {{ }}                {{{ }}}		Semantic changes
Δ
Mandarin 1————4
Mandarin 2————4

Difference in analysis: None

Comments on parsing:

1. In both English and Mandarin, the three adjectives in [1] aren’t treated as the predicates of separate propositions, since they have no arguments or adjuncts of their own.

2. In both English and Mandarin, the adjective in [2] is treated as the predicate of a separate proposition, since it has an underlying verb and argument.

3. In English, [3] is treated as a separate proposition, since it’s seen as having a nominal predicate and an adjunct. That nominal predicate is in apposition with “the person” in [1]. Apposition is treated in this study as modification.

4. The Mandarin version of the sentence is seen as having a proposition that doesn’t correspond to any proposition in the original. That extra proposition, which says “You’ll hope,” is marked with an [X] and flagged as a change in semantic relations. Next come [1], [2] and [3], which say “that person is …, but won’t …, and won’t …” and function as arguments of [X]. Flagging each of these differences as changes in semantic relations may seem a bit harsh. But semantic relations are assessed by the same rules throughout. If those rules lead to high counts for changes in semantic relations in one language, they can have the same effect in the other languages too.