English 1: [And so to think]1 [that I had found my way,]2 [to found a career]3 [that takes me]4 – [really, one of the big sayings in social work is,]5 [“Lean into]6 [the discomfort of the work.”]7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
English 2: [And so to think that I had found my way,]1 [to found a career]2 [that takes me]3 – [really, one of the big sayings in social work is,]4 [“Lean into]5 [the discomfort of the work.”]6
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mandarin 1 (traditional → simplified):
[我想]1 [我找到我的路]2 [發現一個]3 [能帶著我的]4 [事業]3 [社工常說的一句話]5 [偎緊]6 [工作令人不舒服的部份]7
Mandarin 1 (simplified → traditional):
[我想]1 [我找到我的路]2 [发现一个]3 [能带着我的]4 [事业]3 [社工常说的一句话]5 [偎紧]6 [工作令人不舒服的部份]7
1 2Δ 3Δ {4} 5 6 7
Mandarin 1 (traditional → simplified):
[我想我找到我的路]1 [發現一個]2 [能帶著我的]3 [事業]2 [社工常說的一句話]4 [偎緊]5 [工作令人不舒服的部份]6
Mandarin 1 (simplified → traditional):
[我想我找到我的路]1 [发现一个]2 [能带着我的]3 [事业]2 [社工常说的一句话]4 [偎紧]5 [工作令人不舒服的部份]6
1 2Δ {3} 4 5 6
| Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 2 | |||||
| Subtitle translation | Brené Brown | 10 | 4 | 4 | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Mandarin 1 | — | 1 | — | — | ② | |
| Mandarin 2 | — | 1 | — | — | ① | |
Differences in analysis:
1. In both “English 1” and “Mandarin 1,” the phrase “so to think” is treated as a separate proposition in [1]. In both “English 2” and “Mandarin 2,” that phrase is treated as part of a larger proposition in [1].
2. In “Mandarin 1,” the phrase “so to think” is taken as meaning “I thought.” And [2] and [3] are seen as parallel instances of reported speech or thought, whose perspective is shifted with the shift of tense in [1]. In “Mandarin 2,” that phrase is taken as meaning “I think.” And [2] is seen as functionally independent, parallel to [1].
Reasons:
1. Recall that a comment clause is a main clause structure used as a formulaic expression of the speaker or writer’s attitude to an assertion made in a syntactically subordinate clause. This would seem to apply to a phrase like “so to think.” So it would seem appropriate to see that phrase as a comment clause, as in “English 2” and “Mandarin 2.” In our parsing method, a comment clause isn’t treated as a separate proposition.
2. Chinese languages like Mandarin don’t require expression of tense. So context can be the only way to tell if a speaker means “I think” or “I thought.” And context isn’t always conclusive, as can be seen in the different readings reflected in “Mandarin 1” and “Mandarin 2.” If the syntactic main clause is taken to mean “I thought,” the subordinate clause can be seen as an instance of reported speech or thought, as in “Mandarin 1.” If the main clause is taken to mean “I think,” the subordinate clause can be seen as a statement which the speaker or writer agrees with, introduced by a comment clause, as in “Mandarin 2.”
Consequence: The new analysis would lead to a count of 1 rather than 2 changes in semantic relations in the Mandarin translation.