Parsing issues

In addition to confirming the consistency of data, the reliability check also involved an analysis of issues behind individual parsing decisions, whether or not they led to differences in values recorded. Those issues are summarized below. Each summary of a parsing issue is followed by a reference to one or more sample sentences where that issue arose. Clicking on the reference to a sample sentence will open another tab showing the reliability check page for that sentence. That page contains an illustration and a description of the issue in question, including any consequences for the data recorded.

1. Reformulation and non-standard syntax in interpretation

As we’ve seen, simultaneous interpretation between structurally different languages can be significantly affected by the natural constraint on working memory. This can result in repetition and reformulation, to reconcile the order information is heard in with the rules of opposite-branching syntax. It can also lead an interpreter to produce sentences with non-standard syntax (like Turkish or Japanese sentences with verbs or main clauses in non-final position). Such interpretation solutions can be useful for reproducing content. But they can sound awkward in a way that wouldn’t be acceptable in standard written translation. Plus they can change the semantic relations between propositions, affecting meaning and coherence.

See: Obama, sentence 50, comment 2; Obama, sentence 100, difference.

2. Similar parsing across languages

Sometimes a phrase is or isn’t treated as a separate proposition in a translated or interpreted version, though it would be treated differently if the parsing method was applied directly to that version. This is done for ease of comparison, unless a translated or interpreted version seems very different from the original in functional status.

See: Paris Agreement, sentence 80: comment; FCPA, sentence 10, comment; FCPA, sentence 30, difference 2; FCPA, sentence 200, difference 2; Sir Ken Robinson, sentence 50, comment; Amy Cuddy, sentence 70, comment 2; Brené Brown, sentence 60, comment 2; Obama, sentence 100, difference.

3. Comment clauses

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 subordinate clause. A comment clause isn’t treated in this study as a separate proposition. The distinction between a comment clause and a functionally independent proposition isn’t always clear-cut.

See: Simon Sinek, sentence 70, comment; Brené Brown, sentence 10, differences 1 and 2; Brené Brown, sentence 60, comment 1; Obama, sentence 100, difference.

4. Non-clausal phrases

This study treats a non-clausal phrase as a separate proposition if it: (a) provides semantically atypical information like beneficiary, accompaniment, resultant, instrument, location, goal, time (except for descriptions of events), manner or measure (cf. Larson 1984, 219-223), and (b) can be paraphrased as a clause. Though useful, the distinction between semantically typical and atypical information isn’t always clear-cut.

See: FCPA, sentence 30, difference 1; FCPA, sentence 110.

5. Defining vs non-defining modifiers

The distinction between a defining and a non‑defining modifier can be unclear when the entity modified is indefinite.

See: Paris Agreement, sentence 60: difference; Sir Ken Robinson, sentence 50, comment; Brené Brown, sentence 20, comment.

6. Process vs result nominals

The distinction between a process nominal and a result nominal isn’t always clear-cut. A modifier of a process nominal is treated as an adjunct to its underlying predicate.

See: Paris Agreement, sentence 130, comment 1; FCPA, sentence 50, difference; FCPA, sentence 150, comment 1; FCPA, sentence 160, difference; Obama, sentence 50, comment 1.

7. Independent vs subordinate propositions

Sometimes a proposition seems like a functional adjunct in one language, while its equivalent in another language seems more functionally independent. A phrase in a given language can even feel both functionally subordinate and independent at the same time. Sometimes a proposition introducing a statement can be seen either as a functional adjunct to that statement or as functionally independent.

See: Paris Agreement, sentence 90: comment; FCPA, sentence 190, comment; Sir Ken Robinson, sentence 20, difference; Sir Ken Robinson, sentence 40, difference; Amy Cuddy, sentence 70, comment 1; Obama, sentence 130, comment.

8. Apposition

A proposition headed by a noun in apposition with a noun in another proposition is seen as a modifier of that noun. The distinction between apposition and coordination isn’t always clear-cut.

See: Amy Cuddy, sentence 50, comment 3; Simon Sinek, sentence 60, comment 1; Obama, sentence 20, comment; Obama, sentence 110, difference; Obama, sentence 190, comment.

9. Reported speech or thought

When a proposition shifts perspective away from the speaker or writer, it’s marked as reported speech or thought. When a proposition expresses speech or thought which the speaker or writer identifies with, it’s marked as functionally independent. Though useful, this distinction isn’t always clear-cut. When the perspective of reported speech or thought is established in a functionally subordinate proposition, it can feel more like a semantic argument than like reported speech or thought.

See: FCPA, sentence 110, difference; Amy Cuddy, sentence 10, difference; Brené Brown, sentence 10, difference 2.

10. Changes in semantic relations despite same attachment

A subordinate proposition can be attached to the same parent in the original and another language version and with the same type of relation, though that relation is established in a different way and with a different meaning. This is marked as a change in semantic relations.

See: Paris Agreement, sentence 120, comment.

11. Phrases with no argument structure

A phrase with no argument or adjunct isn’t treated as a separate proposition. A functionally subordinate proposition can have an implied argument shared with its parent. If so, it’s treated as a separate proposition.

See: Paris Agreement, sentence 130, comment 2; FCPA, sentence 90, comment; Amy Cuddy, sentence 50, comments 1 and 2; Obama, sentence 200, comment.

12. Semantically empty elements and repetition

When a phrase is semantically empty, it isn’t treated as a separate proposition. Synonymous predicates can be treated as the joint predicate of the same proposition. A proposition which appears once in one language can appear more times with similar words in another language. Such a proposition is treated as a single proposition in all versions, with any repetitions not counted.

See: FCPA, sentence 90, comment; FCPA, sentence 150, comment 2; Amy Cuddy, sentence 100, comment.

13. Meaningless versions

A translated or interpreted version of a sentence can be practically meaningless, with all semantic relations distorted. That can make parsing decisions harder. But such decisions have little effect on the values recorded.

See: FCPA, sentence 150, comment 3.

14. Propositions with a shared argument

If one proposition is subordinate to another and they share an argument, that argument can sometimes be included in either proposition. The choice has no effect on the values recorded.

See: FCPA, sentence 170, difference.

15. Attachment of a modifier

If one proposition is subordinate to another, a modifying proposition can sometimes be seen as modifying an element in either one. A phrase with several modifiers joined by implied syntactic links can sometimes be read more than one way.

See: Paris Agreement, sentence 50: difference; FCPA, sentence 200, difference 1.

16. Linked changes in semantic relations

Sometimes one proposition shows a change in semantic relations between the original and another language version, leading other propositions attached to it to show changes in semantic relations too.

See: Amy Cuddy, sentence 50, comment 4.

17. Prepositional phrases

Sometimes a prepositional or similar phrase can be seen either as the adjunct to a predicate or as a shortened relative clause. Other times such a phrase can be seen as modifying an entity through a simple relation of association.

See: Brené Brown, sentence 60, comment 2; Tim Urban, sentence 50, comment.