English 1: [We are the most in-debt, obese, addicted and medicated adult cohort]1 [in U.S. history.]2
1 2
English 2: [We are the most in-debt, obese, addicted and medicated adult cohort]1 [in U.S. history.]2
1 2
Mandarin 1 (traditional → simplified):
[我認為這是]1 [美國史上]2 [越來越多負債、肥胖、成癮、依賴藥物、成群的很大原因]1Δ
Mandarin 1 (simplified → traditional):
[我认为这是]1 [美国史上]2 [越来越多负债、肥胖、成瘾、依赖药物、成群的很大原因]1Δ
{2} 1Δ
Mandarin 2 (traditional → simplified):
[我認為這是]1 [美國史上]2 [越來越多負債、肥胖、成癮、依賴藥物、成群的很大原因]1Δ
Mandarin 2 (simplified → traditional):
[我认为这是]1 [美国史上]2 [越来越多负债、肥胖、成瘾、依赖药物、成群的很大原因]1Δ
{2} 1Δ
| Mode | Text / Speech | Sentence # | Subordinations | |||
| English 1 | English 1 | |||||
| Subtitle translation | Brené Brown | 60 | 1 | 1 | ||
Target language | Reordering Σi=1 Σj=i+1 I(xj<xi) | ± Nestings { } {{ }} {{{ }}} | Semantic changes Δ |
|||
| Mandarin 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | 1 | |
| Mandarin 2 | 1 | 1 | — | — | 1 | |
Difference in analysis: None
Comments on parsing:
1. The Mandarin version starts with the equivalent of “I believe” in [1]. That’s seen as a comment clause and not treated as a separate proposition.
2. In English, “in U.S. history” in [2] is treated as a separate proposition. That’s because the phrase is seen as a shortened relative clause, meaning “which there has been in U.S. history.” The English phrase could also be seen as being in a simple relation of association with “cohort” in [1] – like saying “of U.S. history.” With that reading, the phrase could still be treated as a separate proposition, consisting of a nominal predicate and an adjunct; or it could be included in [1]. The Mandarin equivalent says “of U.S. history,” which doesn’t seem like a shortened relative clause. But it’s treated as a separate proposition, for ease of comparison.