Analyzing modality-mediated ideology in translated Chinese political discourses: an ideological square model approach

Following the cultural turn in Translation Studies (TS), the focus shifted from purely linguistic aspects to contextual, ideological, and cultural influences on translation, conceptualized as manipulation, rewriting, norm-guided conduct, and ideologically rooted endeavor. Prior research distinguishes between the ideology of translating and the translation of ideology, relating translators’ linguistic choices to ideological positioning and demonstrating how translational shifts can reflect or reframe political stances. Building on SFL, CL, and CDA, recent work highlights modality as a vehicle of ideological meaning. This study investigates how modality is mediated and reconstructed by official translators in Chinese political document discourse. It examines (in)consistencies in translators’ choices for modality and their relation to socio-political and socio-cultural contexts. Research questions: (1) What are the linguistic choices of modality in the STs and TTs? (2) What are the translation shifts of modality? (3) Do these shifts engender changes in the ST’s ideological content?

Studies of Chinese political discourse translation have often reported translators’ principles, strategies, and practices, noting extratextual influences and the role of translation in shaping China’s international image. Research has examined translation strategies, extratextual factors, dissemination and reception of political terms, and image-building through translated discourse. Findings include institutional translations showing shifts aligned with presenting China to the world and high-frequency use of high-value modals in English versions increasing psychological distance from readers. Modality-focused studies (in legal, religious, and diplomatic contexts) show modality’s role in interpersonal meaning and translators’ stance. Interpreting studies reveal tendencies toward weakening, subjectivization, and de-obligation, impacting perceived politeness and sincerity. However, modality shifts in written Chinese political discourse within an SFL-CL framework remain underexplored, motivating the current corpus-based investigation of modality-mediated ideology in translations of CPC National Congress reports.

The study adopts SFL’s modality system (modality type, orientation, value) as the theoretical framework. Modality types: modalization (propositions: probability, usuality) and modulation (proposals: obligation, inclination). Orientation: subjective/objective; explicit/implicit. Values: high/median/low. Tables from Halliday & Matthiessen (2014) guide English modal values; Li (2007) informs Chinese modal auxiliaries/adverbs and their modality types/values. A revised categorization tailored to Chinese political document discourse integrates Li’s and Hallidayan systems and accounts for political rhetoric features in China’s top-down communication. English analysis targets nine core modals (can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, would) plus semi-modals need to and want to; always is included for usuality. Contextual reading ensures exclusion of non-modal instances (e.g., lexical will, non-modal 会/需要). Data: six bilingual General Secretary reports to the CPC National Congress (Jiang Zemin 1992, 1997; Hu Jintao 2002, 2007; Xi Jinping 2017), sourced mainly from Theory China. Corpus size: 182,653 tokens (Chinese 109,279; English 73,374). Tools and procedures: (1) Align Chinese and official English corpora using ABBYY Aligner 2.0 with manual correction as needed. (2) Identify and count modal items using AntConc 3.5.8. (3) Use top TT modal items as search terms to establish coupled pairs in the parallel corpus. (4) Identify translation shifts with CUC ParaConc V0.3, enabling retrieval of Chinese items and official English translations for manual analysis. A diachronic approach examines modal distributions; case studies focus on differences in should and will between the 18th and 19th reports to capture critical translator decision points. The revised categorization assigns neng(能/能够) to low-valued modulation (ability), and includes semi-modals yuanyi(愿意)/xuyào(需要) analogously via want to/need to. Extensive contextual verification ensures only modally relevant instances are counted (e.g., only 14 modalized will vs 1003 modulated will in the TTs).

• Overall modality patterns: TTs are substantially more modalized than STs (157% increase overall in modality; 111% increase in modalization). In modulation, compared to STs, TTs show a 17% decrease in high-valued modulation, a 1279% increase in medium-valued modulation, a 45% increase in low-valued modulation, and a 43% increase in low-valued ability.
• STs: Predominantly modulation (98%) with very little modalization (2%). High-valued modulation (~80%) dominates (e.g., 要, 必须, 务必, 一定), establishing an authoritative, imperative tone suited to top-down political communication. Low-valued modalization (可以, 可能) is rare (51/1258). 要 far outnumbers other items, followed by 必须.
• TTs: Also predominantly modulation (97%), but with a preference for medium-valued modal items over high- and low-valued ones. Top TT modals diachronically: should (1132), will (1003), must (727). Distribution varies: should peaks in the 18th English report, while will peaks in the 19th. Should encodes obligation/necessity; will encodes prediction/volition, evidencing a diachronic ideological shift in stance representation.
• Three main translation shift types identified (centered on should and will):
  1. Addition of should and will in TTs without Chinese triggers, increasing modality and creating parallel, forceful yet negotiable renderings (e.g., educational priorities in the 18th report).
  2. Downgrading Chinese high-valued modality (e.g., 要, 必须) to lower-valued should/will in English, softening authoritative commands while retaining directive force (e.g., cross-Strait policies rendered with should in the 18th report).
  3. Upgrading Chinese lower-valued items to higher-valued will, heightening volition/assurance (e.g., 能 → will surely accomplish in the 18th report).
• Quantitative evidence on should pairs (Table 7): • 18th report: should = 418 instances; triggered by 应 (1; 0.5%); downgrades from high-valued items 要 (60; 14%), 必须 (2; 0.5%); no modality trigger (355; 85%). • 19th report: should = 93 instances; triggered by 应该 (1; 1%); downgrades from high-valued items 要 (26; 28%), 必须 (4; 3%), 一定 (1; 1%); no modality trigger (61; 67%).
• Collocation pattern “we + should/will + verb” is frequent, projecting a proactive CPC image that is efficient, positive, and responsive.

Findings show that while both STs and TTs are modulation-dominant, TTs shift toward medium-valued modality, reducing the authoritative tone and increasing negotiability. The addition of should/will and downgrading of high-valued Chinese modals (要, 必须) recast the interpersonal relationship from a top-down command to a more balanced, negotiable stance for international audiences. Conversely, occasional upgrades (e.g., 能 → will) bolster certainty and volition in strategic contexts. These shifts alter the textual ideology by softening or reconfiguring speaker commitment and social distance. The patterns align with van Dijk’s ideological square model, emphasizing positive self-presentation of in-group (e.g., “we + should/will + verb”) and attenuating potentially face-threatening directives. Tenor (social distance) explains translators’ mediation: the wide hierarchical gap in STs (General Secretary to delegates) is adapted for global acceptability, reshaping an authoritative domestic rhetoric into a more audience-friendly, negotiated stance for international readers.

Using SFL’s modality framework with corpus tools, the study demonstrates that English translations of Chinese political reports systematically mediate ideological meanings through modality. STs feature firm, high-valued modulation (要, 必须, 一定), serving political mobilization and authoritative leadership projection. TTs remain modulation-heavy but favor medium-valued choices (notably should and will), often added or used to downgrade high-valued Chinese items, thus reshaping interpersonal relations and ideological stance for international audiences. Three consistent shift types are identified: addition (should/will), downgrading (要/必须 → should/will), and upgrading (能 → will). The findings underscore translators’ role in ideological mediation shaped by tenor and audience considerations.