Modifier attachment in translation is the problem of deciding exactly which word, phrase or clause a description belongs to. A source can contain familiar vocabulary and still be structurally dangerous because one adjective, prepositional phrase, participle or adverb may attach to more than one possible head. Translate every word correctly but attach the modifier to the wrong element, and the target can change responsibility, category, time, instrument or condition.
People searching for modifier attachment ambiguity, ambiguous modifiers, prepositional-phrase attachment, participial phrases, misplaced modifiers, adjective scope or relative-clause attachment are solving a dependency problem. “The researcher observed the bird with the camera” can mean the researcher used a camera or, in a bizarre context, the bird had one. Many target languages force a choice that English can leave ambiguous.
This article owns the modifier-attachment precision layer. It covers adjectives, compound modifiers, prepositional phrases, participles, reduced relatives, adverbs, noun strings, legal scope, punctuation, coordination and recovery when target reordering changes the host of a modifier. The core rule is: find the head first, map each modifier to that head, then rebuild the relationship naturally.
Find the Head First
The first task is to identify the structural relation before selecting target vocabulary. Every modifier depends on a head noun, verb, adjective or larger phrase. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is translating left-to-right without identifying the central element. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to underline the head and draw an arrow from each modifier For example, in “a surprisingly difficult problem,” problem is head, difficult modifies problem, surprisingly modifies difficult. Before release, reconstruct the same arrows in target. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Adjective Attachment
A precise translator treats this as a mapping problem rather than a sequence of isolated words. An adjective in a long noun phrase may modify one noun or a larger compound. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is attaching an adjective to the nearest noun by default. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to paraphrase the phrase into full relations For example, “new international student support program” can mean a new program for international students, not support for new international students. Before release, state beneficiary and what is new. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Compound Modifiers
The visible source order is only one possible surface form for the underlying relation. Multiword modifiers such as evidence-based and high-risk function as units. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is splitting the unit and changing category. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to identify the compound before target reordering For example, “high-risk patient” means patient classified as high risk, not a person who is risky. Before release, expand the compound into a clause. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Prepositional Phrase Attachment
This feature becomes risky when the target language reorganises phrase or category structure. Phrases beginning with with, in, on, from, for or by can attach to nouns or verbs. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is choosing the wrong host because target word order differs. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to ask the semantic question the phrase answers For example, “with a telescope” can answer ‘using what?’ or ‘having what?’. Before release, test instrument and possession readings. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Of-Phrase Relations
A fluent target is not enough unless the same conceptual dependency remains recoverable. English of can encode possession, participant roles, content, part-whole or identity. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is translating every of with one genitive construction. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to name the relation before translating For example, “destruction of the city” marks the affected entity; “arrival of the train” marks the arriving participant. Before release, convert nominalization to a clause. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
With-Phrase Relations
The first task is to identify the structural relation before selecting target vocabulary. With can mark possession, instrument, accompaniment, manner or circumstance. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is preserving preposition while changing semantic role. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to label role explicitly For example, “cut with scissors” is instrument; “arrived with her sister” is accompaniment. Before release, ask what target relation is encoded. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Participial Modifiers
A precise translator treats this as a mapping problem rather than a sequence of isolated words. -ing and -ed phrases can modify nouns or introduce supplementary events. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is creating dangling or wrong-subject modifiers. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to expand participle into a relative/full clause For example, “students waiting outside” = students who are waiting outside. Before release, check the logical subject. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Reduced Relative Clauses
The visible source order is only one possible surface form for the underlying relation. Reduced relatives compress who/which/that clauses and inherit attachment to a noun. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is expanding them around the wrong noun. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to restore the full relative privately For example, “data collected in May” = data that were collected in May. Before release, ensure time phrase modifies collection. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Relative Clause Attachment
This feature becomes risky when the target language reorganises phrase or category structure. A relative clause in a complex noun phrase can attach to more than one noun. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is using nearest-noun attachment as an automatic rule. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to list candidate antecedents and eliminate using agreement/context For example, “the daughter of the doctor who lives in Seoul” can be structurally ambiguous. Before release, use later references or preserve ambiguity. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Adverb Attachment
A fluent target is not enough unless the same conceptual dependency remains recoverable. Adverbs can modify verbs, adjectives, quantities or entire clauses. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is moving them during polishing and changing scope. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to identify what question the adverb answers For example, “nearly deleted all files” differs from “deleted nearly all files.” Before release, compare truth conditions. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Sentence Adverbs
The first task is to identify the structural relation before selecting target vocabulary. Apparently, frankly and technically can express speaker stance rather than manner. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is attaching them to the verb as manner. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to test whether the adverb comments on the whole proposition For example, “Frankly, the plan failed” differs from “he spoke frankly.” Before release, preserve stance level. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Negation and Attachment
A precise translator treats this as a mapping problem rather than a sequence of isolated words. Not can modify a degree, phrase or whole proposition. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is moving the negative to a different host. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to bracket negative scope For example, “not fully tested” means testing incomplete, not necessarily no testing. Before release, state what remains possible. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Technical Noun Strings
The visible source order is only one possible surface form for the underlying relation. English stacks nouns that encode hidden relations. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is reordering without unpacking hierarchy. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to expand the string into of/for/by relations For example, “air quality monitoring sensor network” = network of sensors for monitoring air quality. Before release, draw concept hierarchy. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Educational Compounds
This feature becomes risky when the target language reorganises phrase or category structure. Educational terms often contain purpose, beneficiary and process in one stack. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is turning “student error analysis framework” into a framework produced by an erroneous student. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to identify who produces what and what is analysed For example, framework for analysing student errors. Before release, paraphrase for a learner. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Scientific Attachment
A fluent target is not enough unless the same conceptual dependency remains recoverable. Scientific phrases can nest dependencies several levels deep. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is attaching variables or conditions to the wrong process. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to map head and nested technical terms For example, “temperature-dependent reaction rate model” is a model of a reaction rate that depends on temperature. Before release, check domain definition. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Legal Scope
The first task is to identify the structural relation before selecting target vocabulary. A modifier can determine which contracts, payments, claims or events a rule covers. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is moving date/condition phrase to another legal noun. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to bracket legal phrase structure before translating For example, “claims arising from contracts signed after 1 January” attaches date to contracts. Before release, test a contract signed before/after boundary. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Punctuation as Evidence
A precise translator treats this as a mapping problem rather than a sequence of isolated words. Commas and dashes can indicate supplementary versus restrictive attachment. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is copying punctuation mechanically or ignoring it completely. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to use punctuation as one clue alongside grammar and context For example, commas around a relative clause can change set selection. Before release, rewrite without punctuation and restate relation. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Coordination and Attachment
The visible source order is only one possible surface form for the underlying relation. A modifier after coordinated nouns may scope over one or all members. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is assuming it modifies only the nearest item. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to bracket coordinated groups For example, “teachers and parents from three schools” can mean both groups come from the schools. Before release, test each member separately. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
The Bracketing Method
This feature becomes risky when the target language reorganises phrase or category structure. Explicit brackets make competing parses visible. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is trusting intuition when a phrase contains several modifiers. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to write nested brackets or a relation tree For example, [review [of policy [for support [of new students]]]]. Before release, create the target tree and compare. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
High-Assurance Attachment Review
A fluent target is not enough unless the same conceptual dependency remains recoverable. Critical documents need a second reader to interpret target structure independently. That distinction matters because translation often changes order, morphology, prepositions, case, punctuation or phrase length. The target may need to be longer or shorter than the source, but it must preserve which elements belong together, which item modifies which head, what counts as one conceptual unit, and what relation connects the parts.
The common failure is accepting a parse merely because the translator can defend it. Such errors often survive ordinary proofreading because every target word can be individually plausible. The breakdown becomes visible only when the reviewer reconstructs the phrase, list, definition or category system as a whole. In technical, legal, educational, scientific and web content, that hidden structural shift can produce the wrong component, wrong rule, wrong category or wrong user action.
A practical method is to ask a reviewer to identify head and modifiers without source For example, if reviewer attaches a safety condition elsewhere, target is not robust. Before release, revise until intended parse is reliably recoverable. This creates a reusable diagnostic instead of relying on intuition. Where the source itself is ambiguous, preserve or flag that ambiguity rather than choosing the most convenient parse. Precision comes from making the same relationship available to the target reader, not from imitating the source’s visible arrangement.
Practical Diagnostic Workflow
Before drafting a dense passage, separate the source into meaningful units. Mark the head of each phrase, draw connections to modifiers or members, identify any fixed multiword units, and note whether a list or definition has hierarchy. Translate only after the structure is stable. Then reverse the analysis on the target: can another reader reconstruct the same head, membership, hierarchy and category boundaries without seeing the source?
This approach also helps with AI-assisted translation. Generative systems are often excellent at local fluency and can therefore conceal structural drift. They may attach a phrase to the nearest noun, split a technical compound, flatten a nested list or replace a category label with a friendlier but broader word. Use AI to propose wording, then validate the conceptual graph independently.
Recovery When Structure Has Drifted
When an error appears, return to the smallest phrase, list or definition that contains the broken relationship. Rebuild its internal structure first, then choose target wording. Avoid global replacement until you know whether the same source string has the same function everywhere. After repairing the local unit, inspect surrounding references, headings, tables and internal links because structural terminology often propagates across a document.
Quality-Assurance Checklist
- Identify head before modifier.
- Recognise compound modifiers.
- Map all prepositional phrases.
- Expand reduced relatives privately.
- Check participial subjects.
- Preserve adverb and negation scope.
- Unpack technical noun strings.
- Bracket legal conditions.
- Use punctuation as evidence, not proof.
- Check coordination scope.
- Audit target reordering for new ambiguity.
- Second-review high-risk phrases.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the nearest noun always receive the modifier?
No. Proximity is only one clue; grammar, semantics, agreement, context and domain knowledge may point elsewhere.
Should I expand long noun phrases before translating?
Often yes, privately. Expansion makes hidden relations visible before target reordering.
What if the source is genuinely ambiguous?
Preserve the ambiguity where possible or flag it when consequences are material.
Why are prepositional phrases risky?
Because one phrase can attach to a noun, verb or larger clause and can encode several semantic roles.
Can punctuation solve attachment?
It helps, but source punctuation may be inconsistent. Use it together with syntax and context.
Can AI choose the wrong attachment?
Yes. It often selects the most plausible parse and hides source ambiguity. Ask for alternative parses and verify independently.
Where This Fits in the eduKate Translation Architecture
Route relative-clause specifics to the existing relative-clause owner, word-order issues to the existing sentence-structure owner, lexical ambiguity to the ambiguous-words owner, and final review to Translate Precisely | How to Verify a Translation.
Final Principle
Translate the dependency, not the position. Find the head, identify what each modifier describes, test alternative parses, then rebuild that same relationship in target grammar. A word is not accurately translated until the reader attaches it to the right thing.