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

This research examines the interplay between ideology and translation within the context of Chinese political discourse. The "cultural turn" in Translation Studies (TS) has shifted focus from linguistic aspects to the contextual, ideological, and cultural factors influencing translation, viewing translation as manipulation, rewriting, or an ideologically rooted endeavor. Numerous studies have explored the relationship between ideology and translation, distinguishing between the 'ideology of translating' (extratextual functions) and 'the translation of ideology' (linguistic micro-level). Researchers have analyzed ideological manipulation through various linguistic features such as lexicogrammar, transitivity, nominalization, lexical choices, collocation, semantic prosody, discourse prosody, and modality. The combination of SFL, CL, and CDA has become increasingly prominent in this area. Previous studies have shown how modality, embodying the interpersonal function of language, reveals the speaker's stance, attitude, and judgment, making it a key area for investigating ideological mediation in translation. This study aims to explore the correlation between textual ideology and the English translations of Chinese political documents using a synergy of CL and SFL. It investigates inconsistencies in official translators' modality choices and their relation to the socio-political and socio-cultural context of Chinese political discourse, addressing questions about linguistic choices in source and target texts, modality translation shifts, and whether these shifts alter ideological content.

Existing research on Chinese political discourse translation within Chinese academia primarily focuses on summarizing official translators' experiences, outlining principles, strategies, and difficulties. Studies also address evaluating translation strategies, suggesting improvements for specific terms, sentences, and passages, exploring extratextual factors influencing translation, analyzing the dissemination and reception of translated political terms, and examining China's international image building through translated political discourse. However, the correlation between textual ideology and English translations within the framework of CL and SFL remains inadequately addressed. While some studies explore the textual effect of translations on the image of the Chinese government and investigate the functional study of modality in various contexts (legal discourse, literary texts, diplomatic discourse), the focus on modality shifts in translation remains limited. Previous research on modality in diplomatic discourse interpreting highlights similarities in modal distribution and the role of modality in articulating translators' attitudes and stances, yet a detailed analysis of modality shifts and their ideological implications in Chinese political discourse translation is lacking.

This study utilizes Halliday and Matthiessen's SFL modality system as its theoretical framework. The modality system's four dimensions—modality type (modalization and modulation), orientation (subjective/objective, explicit/implicit), modality value (high, median, low), and polarity—are considered. The study focuses on the dimensions of modality type, orientation, and modality value. The data comprises six reports from different Chinese leaders (Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping) collected from the Theory China website, totaling 182,653 tokens. A diachronic comparison of the 18th and 19th reports' use of *should* and *will* serves as a case study. AntConc 3.5.8 is used for identifying and counting modal items, and CUC ParaConc V0.3 is employed for comparing source and target texts. Data processing involved aligning corpora, identifying modal items, establishing coupled pairs between source and target texts, and manually analyzing translation shifts. The study uses a revised categorization of modality types and values tailored to Chinese political document discourse, building upon Li's (2007) classification and Halliday and Matthiessen's framework. The analysis includes nine core modal verbs and semi-modals, and considers contextual factors in determining modality values. A crucial aspect of the methodology is the close contextual reading of both source and target texts to ensure reliable and objective categorization of modal items and their values. This addresses the potential for nuanced interpretation and ambiguity in identifying modality within the political context. This rigorous approach ensures the accuracy and validity of the findings.

The comparative analysis reveals that the target texts (TTs) are significantly more modalized (157% increase) than the source texts (STs), particularly in modalization (111% increase). Modulation shows a 17% decrease in high-valued instances, a substantial 1279% increase in medium-valued instances, a 45% increase in low-valued instances, and a 43% increase in low-valued ability. The STs show a greater prevalence of modulation (98%) compared to modalization (2%), reflecting the General Secretaries' emphasis on expressing ability, commitment, volition, obligation, and inclination. High-valued modality (approximately 80%) in the STs contributes to an authoritative image. The modal verb *yao* significantly outnumbers other modal items, reinforcing an authoritative and uncompromising tone. Low-valued items (*keyi* and *keneng*) are rarely used. In contrast, the TTs show a preference for medium-valued modal items in modulation, followed by high- and low-valued items. This corroborates previous findings suggesting a modality value sequence of medium > high > low in political discourse. The medium-valued modal verb *should* (1132 instances) is most frequent in the TTs, followed by *will* (1003) and *must* (727). A diachronic analysis reveals that *should* is more frequent in the 18th report, while *will* is more frequent in the 19th, indicating a shift in the official translators' strategies. Three main types of translation shifts involving *should* and *will* are identified: (1) addition of *should* and *will* in the TTs (adding a subjective assessment or creating a more parallel, forceful tone), (2) downgrading the modality value of Chinese items to lower-valued *should* or *will* (e.g., translating *yao* into *should* or *will*), and (3) upgrading the modality value of Chinese items to the higher-valued *will* (e.g., translating *ding* and *neng* into *will* for a more self-assured tone). The collocation pattern "we + should/will + verb" contributes to a more proactive image of the CPC.

The findings address the research question by demonstrating a clear correlation between textual ideology in Chinese political discourse and the modality choices made by official translators in English versions. The high frequency of high-valued modal items in the source texts reflects the authoritative, top-down communication style characteristic of Chinese politics and the speaker's intent to project power and commitment. The shift towards medium-valued modality in the target texts suggests a strategic adaptation by the translators to achieve broader international acceptance and avoid the potential for misinterpretation or offense. The downgrading of modality value from the source to target texts can be seen as a form of negotiation between the authoritative voice of the source text and the need for diplomacy and intercultural understanding in the target text. This nuanced approach to translation reflects the translators’ awareness of the socio-political and cultural context and their strategic decisions to balance the preservation of original meaning with considerations for the target audience. The addition of modal verbs where there are no explicit counterparts in the source texts demonstrates the translators' active role in shaping the discourse and their strategic use of modality to influence the interpretation and reception of the translated message. This shift towards more balanced interpersonal relationships in the translated texts also suggests a careful consideration of the cultural context and the need for a more nuanced tone in cross-cultural communication.

This study contributes to the understanding of ideology and modality in political discourse translation. The findings demonstrate how modality choices in translation can reflect and shape ideological content, adapting to different socio-political contexts. The identified translation shifts suggest a deliberate strategy by official translators to balance faithfulness to the source text with considerations of intercultural communication. Future research could explore broader aspects of modality in other types of Chinese political discourse translation, analyzing a wider range of linguistic features to further investigate ideological mediation and its impact on cross-cultural communication. Comparative studies across different languages and political systems would also enhance our understanding of the complex dynamics between language, ideology, and translation.

This study focuses on a specific corpus of six reports and may not fully capture the diversity of modality use in all Chinese political discourses. The selection of modal items for analysis may have limited the scope of findings. While the study employed rigorous methods, the subjective element of manual analysis could introduce some degree of bias in interpreting translation shifts and their ideological implications. Future research could overcome these limitations by incorporating a more extensive corpus and employing quantitative methods alongside qualitative analysis.