Cover not available
Article published In:
Babel
Vol. 64:2 (2018) ► pp.269–293

Mediation through modality shifts in Chinese-English government press conference interpreting

| Shanghai Jiao Tong University
This paper investigates the mediation role of interpreters through modality shifts in Chinese-English diplomatic interpreting. Based on the custom-built corpus of interpreted government press conferences, this article conducts a Systemic Functional Linguistics-informed analysis of modality shifts by examining the ST-TT sentence pairs that present high-frequency Chinese or English modality markers. Results show that: (1) the degree of mediation by the interpreters is fairly high in terms of modality, with 44% of the investigated sentence pairs involving modality shifts; (2) shifts mostly occur in modality value (91%) and orientation (64%) rather than modality type (5%), thus the basic speech function of the clause is minimally changed; (3) shifts within the three dimensions point to general tendencies towards “weakening,” “subjectivization” and “de-obligation,” which reflect the interpreters’ efforts to construct the Chinese officials’ image as audience-friendly and proactive, and to adapt the TT to the English communicative norms; (4) “strengthening” and “objectivization” shifts occur frequently around issues concerning the Chinese government’s responsibility or ability, which reveals the interpreters’ active involvement in presenting the Chinese government as responsible, confident and powerful. The study argues that the press conference interpreters’ active mediation is motivated by their institutional identity as “diplomatic workers” and “government representatives” in the Chinese context.
Keywords: diplomatic interpreting, modality shifts, mediation, Chinese, government press conference
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Previous research on GPC interpreting
    • 2.2Previous research on modality in translation
  • 3.Analytical framework
    • 3.1The semantic system of modality in Hallidayan SFL
    • 3.2Modified models for modality shift analysis between Chinese and English
  • 4.Data
    • 4.1Data collection
    • 4.2Data processing
  • 5.Findings
    • 5.1Quantitative findings: Overall patterns
    • 5.2Qualitative findings: The communicative effect
      • 5.2.1“Weakening” and “subjectivization”
      • 5.2.2“Strengthening” and “objectivization”
      • 5.2.3“De-obligation”
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 September 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00036.li
References (41)
References
Bakker, Matthijs; Cees Koster; and Kitty van Leuven-Zwart. 2004. “Shifts of translation”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by M. Baker, 226–231. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Stig Johansson; Geoffrey Leech; Susan Conrad; and Edward Finegan. 2000. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Davidson, Brad. 2000. “The interpreter as institutional gatekeeper: The social-linguistic role of interpreters in Spanish-English medical discourse”. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (3): 379–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Guo, Jiading. 2004. “Memories: Over thirty years of diplomatic translation/interpreting”. International Communications 91: 12–14.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd Edition). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.; and C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th Edition). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.; and Edward McDonald. 2004. “Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese”. In Language Typology: A Functional Perspective, ed. by A. Caffarel; Martin, J. R.; and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., 305–396. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil; and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment. A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hu, Guangwei; and Feng Cao. 2011. “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals”. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (11): 2795–2809. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hu, Kaibao; and Qing Tao. 2012. “Syntactic operational norms of press conference interpreting (Chinese-English)”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (5): 738–750, 801.Google Scholar
Knapp-Potthoff, Annelie; and Karlfried Knapp. 1986. “Interweaving two discourses – the difficult task of the non-professional interpreter”. In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, ed. by Juliane House; and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 151–168. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2009. “Epistemic modality in English popular scientific texts and their German translations”. trans-kom 2 (1): 26–41.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther; and Robert Hodge. 1979. Language as Ideology. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lei, Ning. 2006. “Interpretation Service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”. In Professionalization in Interpreting: International Experience and Developments in China, ed. by Mingjiong Chai, 155–165. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Lévy, Jirí. 1967. “Translation as a decision process”. In To Honor Roman Jakobson, ed. n.n., 1171–1182. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Li, Xin; and Kaibao Hu. 2013. “A Corpus-based study of modal verbs in Chinese-English government press conference interpretation”. Computer-assisted Foreign Language Education 31: 26–32, 74.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R.; and P. R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills Basingstok: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, Ian; and Wen Ren. 2012. “Power in face-to-face interpreting events”. Translation and Interpreting Studies 7 (2): 234–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Engagement and graduation resources as markers of translator/interpreter positioning”. Target 27 (3): 406–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ouyang, Qianhua. 2010. “Interpersonal mediation of the interpreter in political press conference”. In Interpreting in China: New Trends and Challenges – Proceedings of the 7th National Conference and International Forum on Interpreting, ed. by Zhong Weihua, 213–225. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Pan, Feng. 2014. “A corpus-based study of the application of hedges in Chinese-English conference interpreting”. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal 41: 24–29.Google Scholar
Peng, Lizhen. 2007. On Modality of Modern Chinese. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ren, Wen. 2010. The Liaison Interpreter’s Subjectivity Consciousness. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Ren, Xiaoping. 2004. “Training translators and interpreters for the Minstry of Foreign Affairs”. Chinese Translators Journal 11: 61–62.Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B. 2002. “The problem with definitions, descriptions and the role metaphors of interpreters”. In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. by Franz Pöchhacker; and Miriam Shlesinger, 345–353. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sun, Tingting. 2013. Interpreting China: Interpreters ’ Mediation of Government Press Conferences in China. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2004. Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd edition). London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan. 2001. “On the typology of negative modals”. In Perspectives on negation and polarity items, ed. by J. Hoeksema; H. Rullmann; V. Sanchez-Valencia; and V. D. Woulden, 21–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandepitte, Sonia; Liselotte Vandenbussche; and Brecht Algoet. 2011. “Travelling certainties: Darwin’s doubts and their Dutch translations”. The Translator 17 (2): 275–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Wang, Binhua. 2012. “A descriptive study of norms in interpreting: Based on the Chinese-English consecutive interpreting corpus of Chinese premier press conferences”. Meta 57 (1): 198–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Binhua; and Hongwu Qin. 2015. “Describing the target language communication norms in Chinese-English interpreting”. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 041: 597–610, 641.Google Scholar
Zhang, Guanfang. 2013. A contrastive Analysis on modality in English and Chinese political speeches from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Unpublished MA thesis. Ningbo University (P.R. China).Google Scholar
Zhao, Qiurong; and Maocheng Liang. 2013. “The modal strength of epeistemic verbs may and might in English-Chinese translation”. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal 61: 96–99, 108.Google Scholar
Zhu, Yongsheng. 1996. “Modality and modulation in Chinese”. In Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations, ed. by M. Berry; C. Butler; R. Fawcett; and Guowen Huang, 183–210. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Li, Yang & Sandra L. Halverson
2024. Lexical bundles in formulaic interpreting. Translation and Interpreting Studies 19:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Sheng, Dandan & Xin Li
2024. A multi-dimensional analysis of interpreted and non-interpreted English discourses at Chinese and American government press conferences. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11:1 DOI logo
Cheng, Shi
2023. A review of interpersonal metafunction studies in systemic functional linguistics (2012–2022). Journal of World Languages DOI logo
Huang, Yueyue & Dechao Li
2023. Translatorial voice through modal stance: A corpus-based study of modality shifts in Chinese-to-English translation of research article abstracts. Lingua 295 ► pp. 103610 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Jun & Yuxiao Liang
2023. Negotiating intersubjectivity by interpersonal and appraisal shifts in Chinese-English government press conference interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Fu, Rongbo & Kefei Wang
2022. Hedging in interpreted and spontaneous speeches: a comparative study of Chinese and American political press briefings. Text & Talk 42:2 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Gao, Fei
2022. A brief review of studies on interpreters' ideological mediation/intervention at international conferences. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Zhang, Yifan & Andrew K. F. Cheung
2022. A corpus-based study of modal verbs in Chinese–English governmental press conference interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Valdeón, Roberto A.
2020. Journalistic translation research goes global: theoretical and methodological considerations five years on. Perspectives 28:3 ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo
Gu, Chonglong
2019. Mediating ‘face’ in triadic political communication: a CDA analysis of press conference interpreters’ discursive (re)construction of Chinese government’s image (1998–2017). Critical Discourse Studies 16:2 ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 november 2024. 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.