Comparing modal patterns in Chinese-English interpreted and translated discourses in diplomatic setting
A systemic functional approach
Published online: 19 May 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.1.06fu
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.62.1.06fu
This paper, with an eye to the interpersonal component in translational activities, adopts a systemic functional approach to the examination and comparison of modal patterns in interpreted and translated discourses of Chinese Premier’s press conferences and his reports on the work of the government from 2008 to 2012. Following a comprehensive analysis of modality in terms of type, orientation and value, the study shows that, despite their differences in translational mode (i.e. written and spoken) and temporal constraint (i.e. prepared and impromptu), interpreted and translated diplomatic discourses share some common trends in modal distribution. In particular, the massive use of modulation and the favorite collocation of first person pronouns with volitive modal verbs such as will are classic in discourses as such. Additionally, only a minimal number of low-valued modality is used in both translation and interpretation. Given the political sensitivity and policy orientation of diplomatic translation and the institutional identity of diplomatic translators, it is argued that an effective manipulation of modality is essential to their fulfillment of the capacity of “policy endorsers” in reproducing interpersonal connotations embedded in the source language. The paper may also shed some light on the research on translator/interpreters’ role.
References (23)
Bao, Gang. 2005. Introducing Theories in Interpreting Studies. Beijing: China Translation & Publishing Corporation.
Biber, Douglas et al. (ed). 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman Publications Group.
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gotti, Maurizio. 2003. “Shall and Will in Contemporary English: A Comparison with Past Uses”. In Modality in Contemporary English, ed. by Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, and Manfred Krug, 267–300. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Hu, Zhuanglin. 1994. Cohesion and Coherence in Discourses. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ji, Hongqin. 2011. “The Interpersonal Meaning of Modality in Biblical Language”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 43 (2): 230–238.
Jiang, Ting, and Wen Jin. 2012. “Exploring Translation of Modal Verbs in Chinese Legislative Language: A Corpus-Based Approach”. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities 11: 195–199.
Klaudy, Kinca. 2001. “Explicitation”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 80–84. London and New York: Routledge.
Kneževi, Božana, and Irena Brdar. 2011. “Modals and Modality in Translation: A Case Study Based Approach”. Jezikoslovlje 12 (2): 117–145.
Leech, Geoffery. 2003. “Modals on the Move: The English Modal Auxiliaries 1961–1992”. In Modality in Contemporary English, ed. by Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, and Manfred Krug, 223–240. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
Li, Ji’an. 1999. “Modality and Meanings of Modal Auxiliaries”. Journal of Foreign Languages 41: 19–23.
Li, Kexing. 2007. “Function of Modal Verbs in Legal Documents and their Translation”. Chinese Translators Journal 61: 54–60.
Millar, Neil. 2009. “Modal Verbs in TIME: Frequency Changes 1923–2006”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 (2): 191–220.
Munday, Jeremy (ed). 2009. The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies (Revised Edition). Oxon: Routledge.
Smith, Nicholas. 2003. “Changes in Modals and Semi-modals of Strong Obligation and Epistemic Necessity in Recent British English”. In Modality in Contemporary English, ed. by Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, and Manfred Krug, 241–266. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter Mouton.
Steiner, Erich. 2002. “Grammatical Metaphor in Translation: Some Methods for Corpus-Based Investigations”. In Information Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Hilde Hasselgard, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, 213–228. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Wang, Hongyang, and Chunsong Chen. 2007. “A Contrastive Study of Modality in English Political and Academic Speeches”. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 51: 21–24.
Wang, Zhenhua. 2004. “Power in Cross-examination: A Modality Analysis of a Segment of Courtroom Discourse of O. J. Simpson Case”. Foreign Language Research 31: 51–59.
Xu, Yanan. 2000. “Characteristics of and Requirements on Diplomatic translation”. Chinese Translators Journal 31: 35–38.
Yang, Mingxing. 2012. “The Principles and Tactics on Diplomatic Translation: A Chinese Perspective”. Babel 58 (1): 1–18.
Cited by (18)
Cited by 18 other publications
Lu, Dong
Chen, Shukun, Aiping Mo & Shu Yang
Li, Yang & Sandra L. Halverson
2024. Lexical bundles in formulaic interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 19:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Lijuan, Du & Muhammad Afzaal
Phanthaphoommee, Narongdej & Jeremy Munday
2024. Pronoun shifts in political discourse. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción 70:6 ► pp. 825 ff.
Wang, Jiayu & Mingfeng Yang
2023. Interpersonal-function topoi in Chinese central government’s work report (2020) as epidemic (counter-)crisis discourse. Journal of Language and Politics 22:2 ► pp. 185 ff.
Yu, Hailing & Nan Wang
Zhang, Chenxia, Muhammad Afzaal, Abdulfattah Omar & Waheed M. A. Altohami
Chen, Shukun, Winfred Wenhui Xuan & Hailing Yu
2022. Applying systemic functional linguistics in translation studies. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 68:4 ► pp. 517 ff.
Fu, Rongbo & Kefei Wang
Pan, Feng & Binhua Wang
2021. Is interpreting of China’s political discourse becoming more target-oriented?. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 67:2 ► pp. 222 ff.
Fu, Rongbo & Jing Chen
2019. Negotiating interpersonal relations in Chinese-English diplomatic interpreting. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 21:1 ► pp. 12 ff.
Gu, Chonglong
2019. Interpreters caught up in an ideological tug-of-war?. Translation and Interpreting Studies 14:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Gu, Chonglong
2019. (Re)manufacturing consent in English. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 31:3 ► pp. 465 ff.
Gu, Chonglong
2020. Concordancing China’s Friend, Foe and Frenemy: A Corpus-based CDA of Geopolitical Actors (Re)presented at China’s Interpreter-mediated Political Press Conferences. In Corpus-based Approaches to Grammar, Media and Health Discourses [The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series, ], ► pp. 197 ff.
Bendazzoli, Claudio
Xin, Li
2018. Mediation through modality shifts in Chinese-English government press conference interpreting. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 64:2 ► pp. 269 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.