Discourse Society- The Ideological Construction of Solidarity in Translation Comentaries

7/27/2019 Discourse Society- The Ideological Construction of Solidarity in Translation Comentaries

1/31

http://das.sagepub.com/Discourse & Society

http://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0957926511411695

2011 22: 693Discourse SocietyYa-mei Chen

commentaries: Context models and inter-subjective positioningThe ideological construction of solidarity in translated newspaper

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Discourse & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://das.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 17, 2011Version of Record>>

at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on August 20, 2013das.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693http://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693http://www.sagepublications.com/http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://das.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://das.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693.refs.htmlhttp://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693.refs.htmlhttp://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693.full.pdfhttp://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693.full.pdfhttp://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://das.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://das.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://das.sagepub.com/content/22/6/693http://das.sagepub.com/


2/31

Article

Discourse & Society

22(6) 693722

The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: sagepub.

co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0957926511411695das.sagepub.com

Corresponding author:

Ya-mei Chen, Department of English, National Taipei University of Technology, 1 Chung Hsiao E. Road,

Section 3, Taipei, Taiwan.

Email: [email protected]

The ideological constructionof solidarity in translatednewspaper commentaries:Context models andinter-subjective positioning

Ya-mei ChenNational Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan

AbstractThis article utilizes Van Dijks socio-cognitive approach as a theoretical framework to demonstrate

how news translators ideologically construe solidarity in translated newspaper commentariesabout the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signing between Taiwan and

China. Using a corpus of 26 Chinese commentaries from the Liberty Times in Taiwan and their

English translations from the Taipei Times as data, this article (1) compares the context models,

together with relevant ideological forces, constructed by the news translators and the original

writers and (2) investigates how contextual variations guide the translators to make inter-

subjective positioning shifts through engagement resources. The results reveal that the shifts

identified in the translated headlines and arguments (including the change in dialogic nature and

the notable addition of dialogically expansive expressions) were performed by the translators to

establish presumably appropriate solidarity relations (i.e. tolerance-based solidarity) and to align

the writers and the potentially diverse target audience, at whom the translated pieces are aimed.In this way, the translators can achieve the goals of translating commentaries while adequately

responding to the pro-independence ideology of the Taipei Times and the professional ideology of

the news translators as media practitioners.

KeywordsChina, context model, ECFA, engagement, ideology, socio-cognitive approach, solidarity, Taiwan,

translated newspaper commentaries, translators

http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/


3/31

694 Discourse & Society 22(6)

Introduction

Newspaper commentaries, also called guest editorials or guest commentaries, typically

appear on the page opposite the editorials (i.e. the op-ed page). Generally conveying

personal and subjective opinions on current events or relevant issues, such commentariesare written by individuals who are not affiliated with or working for the newspaper but

are typically experts, professionals or prominent figures in certain fields. These

commentaries are intended to argue for or against a case and to persuade readers that

the viewpoints therein are reasonable and credible (cf. Iedema et al., 1994: 154; Wang,

2008: 361).

To successfully achieve their predominantly persuasive communicative purpose,

newspaper commentaries need to effectively convince readers. However, this may not

always be an easy task because, as indicated by White (1998: 77), there are several types

of potential readers for any given news item. These types of readers include the following:(1) co-authorial readers (members of the production team, especially editors and

sub-editors); (2) implicated readers (those involved and referenced in the text); and

(3) general readers (the main addressees or consumers targeted by the news text). All

of these text receivers are expected to express divergent reactions to the text, which may

not necessarily conform to the writers desired responses. An efficient strategy for the

writer is to appropriately arrange linguistic resources of inter-subjective positioning.

Specifically, the writer should include various readers as discourse participants to

acknowledge diverse voices and to connect with these readers through linguistic

expressions of engagement (see the engagement system below), which should establish

and maintain an appropriate level of solidarity with the readers.

Existing studies have explored how the writer fosters solidarity in argumentative

news texts through engagement resources (such as Martin, 2004; Martin and White,

2005; White, 2003), emphasizing the solidarity relationships in the end products (i.e.

the published texts) of non-translated editorials or commentaries. Nevertheless, the

process of constructing solidarity in translated newspaper commentaries and the ways

in which this construction is ideologically motivated and governed have received little

attention. This article aims to cover this ground by investigating a case study of

ChineseEnglish translations of newspaper commentaries conducted at the Taipei

Times in Taiwan, to determine how the translator ideologically adjusts the solidarityrelationships originally construed in the source commentary (or source text) to

effectively build alignment between the original writer and the new readers of the

translated version (or target text).

For the purposes of this article, ideological forces refers to the political ideology of

the target newspaper in which the translated commentary is published and the

professional ideology of the news translator as a media practitioner. These ideologies

can influence the production of the translated commentary solely through the translators

mental models of the event and the communicative situation involved in the target text

(as described in the next section). Regarding the translated commentary at the TaipeiTimes, the arguments conveyed by the original writer in the Chinese text are mostly

retained in the English translation. The name of the original writer is transliterated and

appears in the byline of the translated commentary to explicitly indicate that the



4/31

Chen 695

subjective opinions come directly from the writer. However, the intended readers of the

target text are distinct from the original readers. Moreover, unlike the writing process of

the source commentary that only involves the original writer, the translating process

engages both the translator and the editors. Therefore, the events argued for and against

in the source and target texts are fundamentally the same, whereas the mental modelsthat the writer and translator use for the source and target communicative situations may

differ significantly.

In adopting Van Dijks socio-cognitive approach to ideology, context and discourse

(especially its production) as a theoretical framework, this article intends to explore the

following: (1) the influences of the aforementioned political and professional ideologies

on the context model of the translator, and (2) the ability of this ideology-based context

model to lead the translator into making inter-subjective positioning shifts and

establishing new solidarity relationships in the translated version. The next section

presents a brief description of Van Dijks approach. This is followed by a review of theengagement system. I then describe the case study data and compare the context models

for the source and target texts, before examining the shifts of engagement resources in

the translated commentaries. The last two sections respectively discuss the findings and

offer concluding remarks.

Van Dijks socio-cognitive approach

As defined by Van Dijk (1995a: 248), ideologies are basic frameworks of social

cognition, shared by members of social groups, constituted by relevant selections ofsociocultural values, and organized by an ideological schema that represents the self-

definition of a group. They are abstract and general evaluative beliefs of a social group

that do not express negative undertones, such as false or distorted values, and are not

restricted to dominant social groups or classes (Van Dijk, 2004).

Ideologies, which include both social and cognitive functions, enable social group

members to organize groups and coordinate social activities, interactions and common

goals, in addition to protecting or defending shared interests and resources. Moreover,

they monitor and control the acquisition, organization and application of socio-cultural

attitudes, opinions and knowledge shared by group members. In spite of this, ideologiesare non-deterministic. Specifically, people may belong to multiple groups and possess

several ideologies that are not compatible. Personal experiences and contextual

constraints can also exert some influence. Thus, people do not always consistently and

strictly follow the ideological beliefs or attitudes held by the social groups with which

they identify (Van Dijk, 1995a: 2467, 1995b: 1819).

The ideology of a given social group can have a bearing upon the production of

discourse (including text and talk) by its members only through the mental models of

individual members. Mental models are cognitive representations of specific events,

actions or situations that people are involved in or that they read, talk or write about.

These mental models include both event and context models. Event models refer to

peoples subjective knowledge and opinions about what is being communicated. They

provide discourse content and are the origin of discourse meanings. Instead of being

objective and static socio-cultural constraints, context models are the participants



5/31


personal interpretations of communicative situations and continually adjust to each

situational change. They regulate the parts of event models that will be incorporated in

discourse and the perspectives of the selected information that will be presented in

discourse. Namely, context models control the surface structures of text and talk to

ensure that discourse is appropriate to the current communicative situations (Van Dijk,1995a: 253, 2009: 58).

Mental models are unique and exhibit individual variations by representing not only

personal knowledge but also subjective and evaluative opinions. On the other hand,

mental models are socially controlled because they are typically personal instantiations

of the general social attitudes or beliefs shared by group members, which to some extent

are regulated by relevant group ideologies. Since they are both personal and social,

mental models are significant interfaces between collective ideologies and the individual

production of discourse. During the process of discourse production, ideologies and

domain-specific attitudes first influence mental models (both event and context), whichin turn constrain the mechanisms by which individual group members plan and organize

their text and talk (Van Dijk, 2001: 1718).

The primary concern of this article is context models, which merit a more detailed

description, particularly regarding their internal organization. Context models schematically

consist of socio-culturally based categories, including Social Domain, Setting, Participants,

Event/Action and Cognition. Subsumed under a general social domain (such as mass

communication), a communicative situation (for example, editorial writing) is located in a

certain spatio-temporal setting at both the micro and macro levels (perhaps writing in the

present), and involves corresponding participants who engage in both global actions (suchas commentating) and local actions (for example, arguing and persuading). Participants,

who may include individuals or both individuals and collectives (consider the news

organization), assume contextually relevant communicative and social roles. The former

define participants as speakers/writers, recipients or a range of production roles embedded

in institutional settings (such as editors, sub-editors and proofreaders). The latter specify

such participant characteristics as age, gender, race, profession or political attachment. A

further essential feature is the relationsbetween participants, such as dominance or

friendship. Also vital for context models is the cognitive properties of participants,

especially their goals and intentions, as well as their personal or socially shared knowledge,ideologies, beliefs, attitudes and opinions (Van Dijk, 2001: 213, 2004: 3512, 2008:

767).

The engagement system

Appraisal theory is concerned with the ways through which language users express

subjective evaluation, adopt stances and negotiate solidarity. It consists of three sub-

systems: attitude, engagement and graduation. In this framework, the engagement

system focuses on inter-subjective positioning that is linguistically construed and

negotiated while accounting for those resources which the speaker/writer employs to

engage with dialogic diversity and those devices used to interact with the real or

imagined audience (see Martin, 2000; Martin and Rose, 2003; Martin and White, 2005).

A broad distinction within this system is between monoglossic and heteroglossic



6/31

Chen 697

rhetoric. Monoglossias, mainly related to bare assertions, do not recognize or entertain

alternative views, while heteroglossias acknowledge the presence of multiple conflicting

voices and can be further classified as dialogically contractive and dialogically

expansive (White, 2003: 262).

Intended to restrict the scope of dialogic space, resources of dialogic contractioncomprise two sub-categories: Disclaim and Proclaim. With Disclaim formulations,

alternative positions are invoked and introduced into the dialogue but are then denied,

suppressed or replaced. Disclaim can be achieved through either the expressions of Deny

(such as no, didnt, fail to) or Counter, which is usually realized by concessions (for

example, although, even though), adversatives (however, but,yet, etc.), or continuatives

that alter expectancy, such as still, only, justand even. The sub-category of Proclaim,

implicitly anticipating other responses instead of directly evoking and overruling them,

encompasses the formulations of Pronounce, Concur and Endorse. Pronouncement

expressions are used to highlight the viewpoint of the speaker/writer (such as I contendthat . . .) or to explicitly introduce authorial intervention (for example, The facts of the

matterare that . . .), which enhance the merit of the proposition under consideration. The

use of pronouncement suggests the existence of some doubt or counter positions, against

which the speaker/writer makes an assertion. Concurring formulations clearly express

the agreement of the speaker/writer with the construed addressee(s) (of course, not

surprisingly). These are dialogistic in presenting the speaker/writer to the audience, but

they are contractive because alternatives are characterized as opposing what is generally

shared. Concurrence can also be expressed through rhetorical questions assuming certain

agreed-upon responses. Endorsement resources enable the speaker/writer to convey thatexternal sources are maximally reliable and trustworthy (such as Two studies demonstrate

. . .). Although endorsements are contingent and allow for other options, they actually

limit the range of negotiability due to the sense of authorial approval (Martin and White,

2005: 11733; White, 2003: 26872).

Dialogic expansion broadens the scope of other standpoints and incorporates two sub-

categories: Entertain and Attribute. Entertain formulations assist the speaker/writer in

portraying his/her stance as one of a range of potential views, thereby creating dialogic

space for those possibilities. The resources subsumed under this sub-category are of the

following types: (1) expressions of Likelihood, including epistemic modals (may, could,must, would,etc.), modal adjuncts (perhaps,probably,etc.), modal attributes (such as It

is likely that . . .), mental verbs expressing thought functions (for example, thinkand

believe) and the conditional markerif;1 (2) expressions of Evidence (such as It appears

that . . .); (3) expressions of Hearsay (for example, I hear ); and (4) expository

questions with open-ended answers. Attribute resources are used to quote the viewpoints

of external sources with neutrality (i.e. Acknowledge) or authorial disendorsement (i.e.

Distance). When adopting Acknowledge devices (such assay, according to), the speaker/

writer does not designate his/her positions toward the attributed views. Such external

views are associated with individual subjectivity; they are not absolute and are thus

arguable. Through resources of Distance (such as claim), the speaker/writer expresses

some suspicion and declines responsibility for the validity of the attributed perspectives

to explicitly maintain distance and amplify the dialogic room (Martin and White, 2005:

10417; White, 2003: 2724).



7/31


A diagrammatic representation of the engagement system outlined above is provided

in Figure 1.

Introduction to the case study

Case study data

The case study data comprises 26 Chinese newspaper commentaries from the online

Liberty Times in Taiwan and their English translated versions from the online Taipei

Times, which is one of Taiwans three major English-language newspapers. All of the

source and translated commentaries, published from March 2009 to July 2010, are

illustrated in the Appendix, using the corresponding headlines.The collected news event data revolves around the signing of an Economic Cooperation

Framework Agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China, especially around its

potentially detrimental economic and political effects on Taiwan. In response to the

economic integration promoted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),

in early 2009 the Taiwan government under President Ma Ying-jiou proposed signing the

ECFA with China. The main objectives of the ECFA are to normalize trade relations with

China through liberation efforts (such as tariff reductions and market concessions), avert

the economic marginalization of Taiwan in the East Asian market and substantially

accelerate the internationalization of Taiwans economy. Moreover, this agreement isexpected to enhance industrial integration between Taiwan and China and promote the

free flow of services, capital and merchandise (Brown et al., 2010; Mainland Affairs

Council, 2010; Zhao and Tong, 2009).

Figure 1. Engagement system (adapted from Martin and White, 2005: 134)

http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/http://das.sagepub.com/


8/31

Chen 699

The ECFA signing has created considerable controversy and debate within Taiwan.

Supporters of the ECFA (such as members of the ruling Nationalist Party in Taiwan and

pro-China enterprises) argue that this agreement could elevate Taiwans overall economic

capabilities and competitiveness and help it further integrate into the Asia-Pacific and

global economy. Critics and opponents, especially members of the opposition DemocraticProgressive Party (DPP), claim that the ECFA would expedite capital and talent outflows

in addition to resulting in a severe brain drain of management and technology. These

outcomes could diminish Taiwanese manufacturing activities and increase economic

dependence on China. DPP members, advocating for the independence and sovereignty

of Taiwan, contend that the ECFA is a political deal and a cover for unification with

China. Therefore, such an agreement would endanger Taiwans national security and

undermine its sovereign status. The long-awaited ECFA was officially signed on 29 June

2010, at the fifth meeting between Chiang Pin-kung, the Straits Affairs Foundation

Chairman, and Chen Yun-lin, the Chairman of the Association for Relations Across theTaiwan Straits (Brown et al., 2010; Zhao and Tong, 2009).

The Liberty Times and the Taipei Times are both published by the Liberty Times

Group and are similar in their congenial attitudes toward the DPP and their pro-

independence political ideology (see Hsiao, 2006). Accordingly, these two newspapers,

like the DPP, take the opposing viewpoint on the signing of the ECFA with China.

Nevertheless, the readership profiles of these publications are significantly different. The

intended readers of theLiberty Times are mainly Taiwanese people who support Taiwans

independence and are concerned about sovereignty (Hsiao, 2006: 62). The readers of the

Taipei Times are more diverse (with approximately 30 percent from Taiwan and otherAsian nations and 70 percent from the USA, England, Canada, Germany, France and

other countries) because the primary purpose of the Taipei Times is to promote Taiwans

international visibility.2

Besides, the production tasks of the source and translated commentaries are different.

Normally, individual writers who are not employed by the Liberty Times write the

original Chinese commentaries. However, the translated versions are produced within

the institutional environment of the Taipei Times through collaborative efforts. The

deputy editor-in-chief is the primary gatekeeper who selects Chinese commentary

articles for translation, and the articles selected generally conform to the socio-politicalstances of the Taipei Times. The translators must obtain authorization from the original

writers, who may ask to proofread the translations before publication. Drafts of the

translated commentaries are verified and reviewed by the deputy editor-in-chief and

copy editors, with minor modifications as necessary. Unless major problems occur (such

as comprehension problems), the translation drafts are not returned to the translators (see

Lee, 2004: 58).

Due to the dissimilarities in the intended readers and the production tasks, the context

models together with relevant governing ideological forces, construed by the original

writers and translators during their respective production processes, may vary to a

considerable degree, thus influencing the presentation of the same events in the translated

versions. The next section will elaborate on such differences between the source and

target contexts.



9/31


Context models of the source and target commentaries

The case study aims to investigate the general patterns of ideology-related solidarity

exhibited in all of the translated commentaries, as opposed to the types of solidarity

established in the source versions. Thus, in terms of the context categories introduced in

the section on Van Dijks approach above, this section will primarily compare the

contextual aspects shared by each writer and translator without further explanation on

individual variations. Under each contextual category, only those aspects relevant for the

construction of solidarity will be discussed.

The contextual categories of domain, action and setting. Although they are in the samedomain, the source and target context models differ in the categories of action and

setting, as illustrated in Table 1. Despite the fact that their local actions are dissimilar (i.e.

writing vs translating), the writer and translator are both aware that macro-level actions

involve informing the public and commenting on current events, as both the source and

target commentaries are under the domain of mass communication and will be published

on the newspaper opinion page. A further distinction arises from the setting category

with respect to translating as an institutional practice, in contrast to the more individually

oriented activity of writing.

The contextual category of participants. The differences revealed in Table 1 result in theinvolvement of diverse participants in each source commentary and English translation.

The source participants include the writer, the implicated readers and the intended source

readers. The target context encompasses the translator, the writer, the editors, the intended

target readers and the Taipei Times. Table 2 describes the roles and social relations of

those participants.

Featured in both the source and target contexts, the writer assumes one of the following

social roles: (1) a professor of economics, finance or international politics at a Taiwanese

university; (2) a DPP politician; or (3) an expert working for Taiwan Thinktank, Taiwan

Brain Trust or the Taiwan Association of University Professors, which are independent

non-profit public policy research organizations affiliated with the pro-independence

DPP. The social role of the writer is specified at the end of the Chinese commentary and

Table 1. The source and target domains, actions and settings

Source context model Target context model

Domain Mass communication Mass communication

Action Micro level: writing a commentary

Macro level: informing andcommenting

Micro level: translating acommentaryMacro level: informing andcommenting

Setting

Micro level: writing in the presentMacro level: the date and year ofwriting and Taiwan as the macrolocation

Micro level: translating in the presentwithin the Taipei Times institutionMacro level: the date and year oftranslating and Taiwan as the macrolocation



10/31

Chen 701

its English version. In contrast, the source and target bylines reveal the communicative

role of the writer as a commentator and persuader. Another communicative function thatthe writer fulfils in the target commentary is to verify the pre-published version of the

translated text.

In addition to distinctive readerships, the source and target contexts differ in two

respects. First, the source context involves the governments of Taiwan and China and

pro-China enterprises as the implicated readers. These ECFA supporters are under

criticism and are likely to examine whether their stances toward the ECFA are

misrepresented in the commentary. However, they exhibit a minimal tendency to check

the translated version, and are comparatively less relevant in the target context. Second,

theLiberty Times,as a macro-level news institution, is not featured in the source contextbecause it does not employ the writer. Besides characterizing the news translator as a

participant at the end of the target commentary (such as Translated by Ted Yang), the

target context presents the editors and the Taipei Times as essential participants to whom

the translator is subordinate as a news media practitioner.

Table 2. The source and target participants


(A) Social roles Micro level: the writeris an expert, a politicianor a professor; theimplicated readers arethe governments ofTaiwan and China andpro-China enterprises;the source readers areTaiwanese citizens

Micro level: the writer is an expert, apolitician or a professor; the translatoris a news media practitioner; the editorsare the deputy editor-in-chief and copyeditors; the target readers are mainlydiverse foreign citizensMacro level: the Taipei Times as a newsinstitution

(B) Communicativeroles

Micro level: the writeras a commentator and

persuader; the implicatedreaders as auditors;the source readersas recipients to bepersuaded

Micro level: the writer as acommentator, persuader and

proofreader; the translator as anintermediary; the editors as co-authorialreaders and supervisors; the diversetarget readers as recipients to bepersuadedMacro level: the Taipei Times as aninstitutional commentator andpersuader

(C) Social relations Micro level: relationsof solidarity and powerbetween the writer andthe intended Taiwanesereaders

Micro level: relations of solidaritybetween the writer and the diverseforeign readers; the subordinaterelations of the translator to the editorsand the Taipei TimesMacro level: the relations of solidaritybetween the Taipei Times and the targetreaders



11/31


Concerning the writerreader relationship, solidarity is featured in both context

models, as newspaper commentaries (either original or translated) intend to convincereaders to accept the subjective opinions they express. Even so, the parties involved in

the solidarity relationships are different in the source and target contexts. The writers will

align with the Taiwanese readers in the source text, but with the diverse foreign readers

in the target version. Moreover, the translator presumes that solidarity relationships are

necessary to affiliate the target readers with the Taipei Times. Each source commentary

has been selected for translation due to its compatibility with the political stance of the

Taipei Times. Thus, the translator envisages the Taipei Times as an institutional

commentator and persuader that aims to persuade the target readers by publishing the

translated texts. Power is another relationship that is construed in the source context. Thewriter will clarify the readers misconceptions regarding the ECFA or suppress positive

views of the ECFA through his/her expertise or powerful social status. The same

relationship is less likely to occur between the writer and the target readers because the

latter are unfamiliar with the former.

Table 3. The source and target cognitive properties


(A) Knowledge Micro level: knowledgeof commentary writing;knowledge of the ECFA;knowledge of the pro-independence ideology andanti-ECFA attitudes of theLiberty Times; knowledgeof Taiwanese readersunderstanding of andinterest in the ECFA

Micro level: knowledge of commentarywriting and translating; knowledgeof the ECFA; knowledge of foreignreaders understanding of and interestin the ECFA and Taiwans politics;knowledge of news values;Macro level: knowledge of ECFA;knowledge of foreign readers interestin and understanding of the ECFA andTaiwans politics

(B) Goals Micro level: highlighting the

detrimental effects of theECFA; opposing the signingof the ECFA; persuadingthe intended Taiwanesereaders

Micro level: conveying the

argumentative and persuasiveintentions of the writerMacro level: highlighting thedetrimental effects of the ECFA;opposing the signing of the ECFA;persuading foreign readers; implicitlyconveying the political stance of theTaipei Times

(C) Opinions,attitudes, beliefsand ideologies

Micro level: negativeopinions regarding theECFA; beliefs about

the intended Taiwanesereaders pro-independenceideology

Micro level: the professional ideology;beliefs about editors conformity tothe Taipei Times political stance; beliefs

about the diverse political stances offoreign readersMacro level: pro-independenceideology and anti-ECFA attitudes;beliefs about the diverse politicalstances of foreign readers



12/31

Chen 703

The contextual category of cognition. Concomitant with more participants in the targetcontext are extra-cognitive properties, as indicated in Table 3. The writer or translator

possesses micro-level properties, while the macro-level properties are those that the

translator assumes would be exhibited by the Taipei Times as an institution. It is exactly

here that ideological influences enter the picture.Both the writer and the translator possess some knowledge of commentary writing,

the ECFA and the intended readers. The writer seeks to utilize the Liberty Times as a

publication channel and undoubtedly has some understanding of its associated political

stance. As a news media practitioner, the translator highlights other knowledge in his/

her context model, such as the knowledge of news values (for example, relevance,

consonance, conflict and negativity) and translation strategies, as well as the knowledge

possessed by the Taipei Times as an institutional agent.

Most of the writers goals are reproduced in the target context as the macro-level aims

pursued by the Taipei Times, which also strives to convey its political orientation througheach translated commentary. Unlike the writer, the translator will endeavour to fulfil the

purposes of translating rather than writing commentary.

Though the writer does not necessarily share the pro-independence ideology of the

Liberty Times, he/she does believe in the detrimental effects of the ECFA and presumes

that the intended Taiwanese readers share political affiliation with the Liberty Times. By

contrast, the translators (at the micro and macro levels) understand the target readers as

having divergent positions toward Taiwanese politics because they are dispersed in various

countries with different backgrounds and concerns. Furthermore, the target model

emphasizes ideological impacts. The pro-independence ideology of the Taipei Times isnormally presented as a macroscopic cognitive property sustained by the editors, while the

professional ideology is microscopically exhibited by the news translator and encompasses

such notions as accuracy, truthfulness, reader orientation, maximal communicative

efficiency, and compliance with the editorial policy and the position of the news organization

(see Chen, 2008, 2009, 2011; Cheng, 2004; Davies, 2006; Kang, 2007; Kuo and Nakamura,

2005; Li, 2001; Loupaki, 2010; Orengo, 2005; Sidiropoulou, 2004; Vuorinen, 1997).

Data analysis

The generic structure of the source and target commentaries closely resembles the media

exposition proposed by Iedema et al. (1994: 15764). In addition to the headline section,

the main body of the commentary consists of three stages: an opening thesis that presents

the primary argument; several supporting arguments; and a closure that reiterates the

opening thesis. This three-stage section provides support for the standpoint of the writer

set forth in the headline. In what follows, this article will discuss the regular translation

shifts of engagement resources in both the headline and main body sections.

Translation shifts in the headline sectionNot all focal points expressed in the source headlines are kept in the translated versions.

Table 4 illustrates a comparison of the source and target headlines concerning their

respective focuses and dialogic nature (i.e. either monoglossic or heteroglossic).



13/31


The source headlines for which the emphases are retained in the target counterparts

are mainly pertinent to the detrimental aspects of the ECFA. The following are two

examples:3

1. No. 3SC: ECFA

(The ECFA cannot prevent the decrease in competitiveness)

TC: Signing an ECFA wont make firms competitive

2. No. 21

SC:

(Plant variety protection rights are seriously affected)

TC: ECFA will harm plant variety protection

However, the source headlines not preserved in the translated versions usually containinformation of local relevance (such as items Nos 5, 10, 22 and 25), information not

focused on the ECFA (for example, items Nos 4, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 23) or information

that is not straightforward for the target readers (such as items Nos 12, 18 and 20),

which can be respectively illustrated by the source headlines in examples 3 to 5 below.

The event pertaining to the Mainland Affairs Council in Taiwan in example 3 may be

relevant to Taiwanese readers, but unfamiliar to the target readers. The source headline

in example 4 emphasizes the DPP of Taiwan. Concerning the source headline in example

5, Taiwanese readers can easily grasp the underlying implication (i.e. the marginalization

of Taiwan by the international community is preferred over domination by China), butthe target readers may not understand. All translated counterparts instead revolve around

unfavourable aspects of the ECFA.

Table 4. Comparison of the source and target headlinesa

Similar focuses Different focuses Percentagein a total

of 26headlines

Sourceheadlines

Monoglossic Nos 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11,21, 24

Nos 5, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20,22, 23, 25

65

Heteroglossic Nos 3, 8 Nos 4, 13, 15, 16, 26 27Targetheadlines

Monoglossic Nos 2, 7, 21, 24 Nos 12, 16, 18, 19, 23 34

Heteroglossic Nos 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 Nos 4, 5, 10, 13, 15, 20,22, 25, 26

58

a The meanings conveyed by the source and target headlines in news items Nos 14 and 17 are, to someextent, ambiguous because these headlines are presented as two joined noun phrases. Determining preciselyif these four headlines are monoglossic or heteroglossic seems unlikely, and, therefore, they are not includedin this table.



14/31

Chen 705

3. No. 25

SC: ECFA

(Three serious frauds of the ECFA the Mainland Affairs Council makes itself an

international laughing stock)

TC: ECFA just cant stand up to scrutiny

4. No. 4

SC:

(This cannot be the mainstream DPP position [we] must not fall into the trap of

believing the two misconceptions)

TC: Would ECFA harm only a minority?

5. No. 20

SC:

(Beingconsigned to the margins is better than being consigned to history)TC: ECFA could end political freedom

According to Table 4, 65 percent of the source headlines are monoglossic and 27 percent

are heteroglossic. In contrast, only 34 percent of the target headlines are dialogically

inert, while 58 percent are heteroglossic. The shift in the dialogic nature is reviewed in the

following four examples, with the source and target headlines in the first two examples

conveying similar focuses and the last two examples exhibiting disparate concerns.

6. No. 9

SC: ECFA

(The ways the ECFA sells out Taiwan)

TC: ECFA just a step to annexing Taiwan

7. No. 11

SC: ECFA

(Demystifying the ECFA myth)

TC: ECFA assessments are unrealistic

8. No. 10SC: ECFA

(The ECFA does harm to the common people)

TC: The ECFA is based on unrealistic hypotheses

9. No. 22

SC: ECFA CEPA

(The ECFA is essentially the same as the CEPA [Comprehensive Economic Partnership

Agreement]: reproducing the tragedy of Hong Kong)

TC: The income gap under an ECFA will only widen

The opinions proposed in all the source headlines are presented as unproblematic

assertions that anticipate no challenges or objections from the intended Taiwanese



15/31


readers. Conversely, the communicative background for the corresponding translated

headlines is construed as heteroglossic. Although the target headlines with the countering

resourcesjustand only in examples 6 and 9 contradict the contrary views (such as the

ECFA is beneficial to Taiwan or the income gap under the ECFA will narrow), these

headlines still invoke dialogic diversity. Furthermore, the target headlines in examples 7

and 8 reject or combat the positive viewpoints (i.e. the assessments or hypotheses about

the ECFA are realistic) by using denial resources (as illustrated by the parts in bold), but

remain fundamentally heteroglossic by acknowledging the alternation introduced into

the dialogue.The engagement resources differ for the source and target headlines with heteroglossic

expressions (see Table 5). About 72 percent (13 out of 18) of the engagement resources

used in the target headlines are dialogically contractive, and 28 percent (5 out of 18) are

expansive. However, almost all of those employed in the source headlines restrict the

scope of different positions. From this perspective, the heteroglossic source headlines are

less tolerant of alternative voices than the dialogically active target headlines.

Moreover, examples 10 to 12 below reveal that nearly one-half of the source headlines

with heteroglossic resources are not used to express opinions directly about the ECFA,

but instead express opinions about those who endorse the signing of the ECFA (i.e.pro-China enterprises, China and the Taiwan government). In examples 11 and 12, the

concurring formulations adopted are rhetorical questions assuming specific answers

(see the parts in bold). The source readers are expected to reply No to the questions

regarding China and Yes to questions about the Taiwan government.

10. No. 13

SC:

(Only pro-China enterprises get benefits)

11. No. 15

SC:

(Does [China] make concessions to Taiwan? Does [the Taiwan government] seek

the impossible from China?)

Table 5. Frequencies of occurrence of different engagement resources in the headlines

Engagement resources Source headlines Target headlines

Disclaim (A) Deny 3 6

(B) Counter 1 7Proclaim (A) Concur 5 0

(B) Pronounce 0 0(C) Endorse 0 0

Entertain (A) Evidence 0 0(B) Likelihood 1 3(C) Hearsay 0 0(D) Expository questions 0 2

Attribute (A) Acknowledge 0 0(B) Distance 0 0



16/31

Chen 707

12. No. 16

SC:

(Does [China] make concessions to Taiwan? Does [the Taiwan government] benefit

China? Taiwans high-tech know-how is handed over to China)

Translation shifts in the main body section

In contrast to the headline section, which compares the source and target headlines in

terms of both the ratio of heteroglossias to monoglossias and the adopted engagement

resources, this section will concentrate on analysing the contractive and expansive

resources of engagement adopted in the three stages of the source and target arguments

(i.e. the stages of thesis, supporting arguments and closure) for two fundamentalreasons. First, the clauses involved in the main body of the source and target

commentaries may not be the same due to sentence restructuring in the English

translations. Therefore, it is difficult to precisely compare the proportions of

heteroglossic clauses in the original and translated versions. Second, the function of the

main body section is to offer argumentation of the viewpoint conveyed in the headline.

Hence, the primary concerns are the mechanisms that the writer utilizes to interact and

negotiate with the intended readers and the creation of appropriate dialogue through

engagement resources.

In a newspaper commentary, meanings accumulate with each argument, and allarguments are interlinked through logical relations. When the source commentaries were

translated into English, all Chinese arguments in the main body section were rendered

into English in the original order without radical changes, which usually occur in headline

translations. Nonetheless, apparent shifts are observed in the adopted engagement

resources, as delineated in Table 6.

The number of contractive resources in each stage of the target commentaries is

similar to the corresponding stage of the source versions. However, the frequency of the

target expansive resources in each stage is greater than that of the source counterparts.

This result suggests that certain bare assertions in the source texts are rendered intocorrespondingly heteroglossic statements in the translated versions. The total number

of target expansive resources increases to 222, and the discrepancy in occurrence

frequency between the target contractive and expansive expressions is considerably

reduced.

Table 6. Frequencies of occurrence of the engagement resources in the source and targetcommentaries

Thesis

Supportingarguments

Closure

Total

Source Target Source Target Source Target Source Target

N % N %

Contraction 35 33 209 199 47 45 291 70 277 55Expansion 26 36 77 150 22 36 125 30 222 45



17/31


The contractive resources employed in the source commentaries chiefly include the

sub-types of Deny and Counter (see Table 7) and are generally retained in the target

texts. While acknowledging alternative positions, this large proportion of Disclaim

devices in the source and target commentaries is predominantly used to refute approvingopinions on the signing of the ECFA (see examples 13 and 14), although they are

sometimes employed to challenge uncritical attitudes towards the Taiwan government

or China (see examples 15 and 16). With a great number of Disclaim resources, the

arguments of the writers are particularly difficult to confront because both the source

and target readers are positioned to accept those arguments rather than to make their

own judgements.

13. No. 2

SC: ECFA

(The ECFA negotiated between the two sides of [the Taiwan Strait] willnotpromote

the overall development of production in Taiwan; on the contrary, it will accelerate

the decrease in job opportunities.)

TC: An ECFA negotiated between Taiwan and China will not promote the overall

development of production in Taiwan. On the contrary, it will accelerate the loss of

job opportunities

14. No. 5

SC: ECFAtrade diversiontrade creation

(The effects of trade diversion and trade creation from signing the ECFA will notbe

beneficial to Taiwans overall economic development)

TC: . . . the effects of trade diversion and trade creation from signing an economic

cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China would not be beneficial to

Taiwans overall economic development.

15. No. 18

SC:

(This issue involves the survival of Taiwan as a country and its sovereignty . . . Ma

Ying-jeou does not share the mainstream public opinion in Taiwan; however, he

agrees with China, which intends to swallow up Taiwan.)

Table 7. Frequencies of occurrence of the contractive resources in the source and targetcommentaries

Contractive resources Source commentaries Per text Target commentaries Per text

Disclaim (A) Deny 110 4.23 108 4.15(B) Counter 111 4.23 109 4.19

Proclaim (A) Concur 35 1.34 32 1.23(B) Pronounce 10 0.38 11 0.42(C) Endorse 25 0.96 17 0.65



18/31

Chen 709

TC: These issues involve the very survival of Taiwan as a country as well as its sovereignty Neither is there any real convergence between what President Ma ying-jeou

() is doing and public opinion. However, there is a clear consensus between

Ma and China.

16. No. 19

SC:

(China does nothave a free economy, and China has only a CCP controlled economy;

liberal and international economic theory is notapplicable to China.)

TC: China does not have a free economy, and it is controlled by the CCP: one cannotapply liberal, international economic theory in China.

As displayed in Table 8, the dialogically expansive resources employed in the source

commentaries mainly fall under the realms of Likelihood and Acknowledge, which is

also true for the target commentaries. Nonetheless, the frequencies of occurrence for the

target commentaries substantially exceed the original Chinese versions.

The source expressions of Likelihood and Acknowledge are generally preserved in the

target commentaries. They are primarily aimed at permitting tolerance and recognition

in the dialogical space for potential responses that differ from or question the current

positive views on the concern of the Ma administration for Taiwans development and

people or on the ECFA signing (see examples 17 to 18). Comparatively few of those

expressions are utilized to allow for negotiation between different value positions toward

the potentially damaging effects of signing the ECFA (see examples 19 and 20).

17. No. 7

SC: ECFA

(If the government is serious about Taiwans sustainable development, one of the

primary tasks for promoting the ECFA should be to seek public opinion across differentsectors of society.)

TC: Ifthe government is serious about sustainable development, seeking public opinion

across different sectors of society should be at the top of its list in promoting an

ECFA.

Table 8. Frequencies of occurrence of the expansive resources in the source and targetcommentaries

Expansive resources Sourcecommentaries

Per text Targetcommentaries

Per text

Entertain (A) Evidence 6 0.23 5 0.19(B) Likelihood 49 1.88 131 5.03(C) Hearsay 0 0.00 1 0.03(D) Expository

questions8 0.30 7 0.26

Attribute (A) Acknowledge 51 1.96 72 2.76(B) Distance 11 0.42 6 0.23



19/31


18. No. 1

SC: :ECFA

(The Ma administration says, if the two sides [across the Taiwan Strait] do not sign

the ECFA, Taiwan will be marginalized by the launch of ASEAN Plus Three.)

TC: The Ma administration also says Taiwan will be marginalized by the launch ofASEAN Plus Three if the nation does not ink an economic pact with China.

19. No. 2

SC: ECFA

(. . . After the ECFA is signed, white-collar workers, too, may face the low-income

problem resulting from stagnant or falling wages.)

TC: White-collar workers, too, may face stagnant or falling wages following the signing

of an ECFA.

20. No. 2

SC: ECFA

(According to the principle of comparative advantage among nations, after the ECFA

is signed, economic resources and productive activity are bound to shift to low-cost

China . . .)

TC: The principle of comparative advantage among nations states that once an ECFA is

signed, economic resources and productive activity are bound to shift to China

because production costs are lower there

The additional Likelihood expressions in the target commentaries can be further classified

into the following two main subtypes: (1) the addition ofwould(65 percent), and (2) the

addition of can/could, may/might and likely (30 percent). These expressions assist in

presenting the translated arguments as more tolerant than the source versions of opinions

toward the detrimental influences of the ECFA on Taiwan. The following are examples

of such source extracts and their English translations:

21. No. 5

SC: ECFA

(After signing the ECFA, Chinas exports to Taiwan [will] increase, and Taiwans

exports to China [will] increase, too, but this will also crowd out our countrys

exports to the USA, Japan, Southeast Asia and Europe.)

TC: After the signing of an ECFA, Chinas exports to Taiwan would increase. Taiwans

exports to China would increase, too, but this would have the effect of crowding out

Taiwans exports to the USA, Japan, Southeast Asia and Europe.

22. No. 21

SC: ECFA

(CPC, which is import-oriented, and the mid to downstream operators dependent on

it for raw materials [will] not actually enjoy any benefits. Instead, if the ECFA is

signed, it is not impossible that Formosa Petrochemical [will] be motivated to



20/31

Chen 711

establish upstream plants in China and then sell its products back to Taiwan, leading

to a disastrous impact on CPC, which has more employees.)

TC: China Petroleum Corp (CPC), which is more oriented toward domestic sales, and the

mid to downstream operators dependent on it for raw materials would gain nothing.

Once an ECFA is signed, it is not impossible that Formosa Petrochemical wouldestablish upstream plants in China and then sell its products back to Taiwan. That

would have a disastrous impact on CPC, a major local employer.

23. No. 21

SC: ECFA

(After the ECFA is signed, Chinas 300 mid- and low-stream steel products originally

banned for import will flood into Taiwan. Upstream steel operators such as China

Steel will be seriously undermined, and in the mid- to long-term the survival ofdownstream metal product makers will also be threatened.)

TC: After an ECFA is inked, approximately 300 mid- and low-stream steel products from

China originally banned for import will flood into Taiwan. This could seriously

undermine upstream steel operators such as China Steel and in the mid- to long-term,

the survival of downstream metal product makers will also be questionable.

24. No. 10

SC:

(Since labour costs and rent in China are far lower than in Taiwan, Chinas cheapand inferior counterfeit products and agricultural produce will flood into Taiwan on

a large scale under zero-tariff preferential treatment.)

TC: Since labour costs and rent in China are far lower than in Taiwan, cheap and inferior

Chinese products and agricultural produce will likely enter the nation on a large scale

under zero-tariff preferential treatment.

The addition ofwould in examples 21 and 22 merits further explanation. The source

extracts in the two examples are presented in the future tense because the ECFA had not

yet been signed at the time of the newspaper commentaries. The future tense in Chinese

can be (1) indicated explicitly by a future tense modal verb, such as (see the underlinedparts in the source extracts of examples 21, 23 and 24); (2) conveyed implicitly through

mentioning a future event (such as the literal English translations of the source extracts

in examples 21 and 22 with the bracketed will); or (3) expressed by a combination of the

two (cf. Lin, 2002: 9). The modal verb wouldin the target extracts is not the past form

of the future tense auxiliary willbecause the target versions are not delivered in the past

tense. Instead, the modal verb wouldis an auxiliary of epistemic modality which conveys

a prediction of the future with assertive emphasis (cf. Halliday, 1976; Ward et al., 2003).

Based on the individual subjectivity of the writers, the predictions expressed in the target

arguments are indicative of possibility and are characterized as but potential viewpoints,which may not be universally agreed upon by the readers.

Notably, the addition ofwill, such as in example 25, is not considered a translation

shift in the case study at issue.



21/31


25. No. 17

SC: ECFA

(Even if the ECFA does not include any politically sensitive wording, Beijing [will]easily make use of it to promote the one China principle and the concept of

unification. The ECFA [will] make Taiwan become an economic appendix to China,

while causing international society to assume, more generally, that Taiwan is part of

China.)

TC: Even if the ECFA does not include any politically sensitive wording, it will be easy

for Beijing to use the agreement in its international propaganda regarding the one

China principle and unification. Not only will the ECFA transform Taiwan into an

economic appendix to China, it will also promote the international view that Taiwan

is part of China.

The status of the modal verb willin example 25 is ambiguous. This modal verb may

have been used to simply denote the future time frame adopted in the source extract,

where the future tense is not expressed by a marker of futurity (such as ) but ratheris implied by mentioning the future event. Alternatively, this auxiliary verb may

have been added to convey both the epistemic meaning of prediction and the sense

of futurity. As indicated by Coates (1983), futurity normally involves an element of

probability and inevitably overlaps with epistemic modality. Only when willcontains

the epistemic meaning can this addition be regarded as a context-sensitive shift. Due

to the uncertainty regarding the underlying reason, such an addition fails to providestrong textual evidence for the influence of the translators context model on discourse

production.4

The additional Acknowledge resources appearing in the target arguments are primarily

utilized to replace the Endorse or Distance expressions adopted in the source versions, as

demonstrated in the following four examples:

26. No. 6

SC: GTAP

ECFA

(Chiu Jiunn-rong, vice dean of the School of Management at National Central

University, also indicated that the GTAP [Global Trade Analysis Project] model

used in a report by the CIER [Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research]

provided the equilibrium analysis based on the assumption of full employment, so

the report was incapable of estimating the potential impacts of the ECFA on

employment.)

TC: In addition, Chiu Jiunn-rong (), vice dean of the School of Management at

National Central University, said the Global Trade Analysis Project model used in a

report published by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research was based on

the assumption that there is full employment in the market. Chiu said the report wastherefore incapable of estimating how an ECFA would affect Taiwans domestic job

market.



22/31

Chen 713

27. No. 26

SC: ECFA

ECFA

(The Economist has shown considerable concern over the situation on the two sides

[of the Taiwan Strait] after signing the ECFA. On July 1, one article posted in itsonline editionpointed out that when the ECFA further deregulated the agricultural

and financial industries, Taiwans security would be influenced.)

TC: The respected publication The Economist recently ran a number of articles on the

Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). On July 1, one of these posted

in the online edition said that the deregulation of the agricultural and financial sectors

embodied in the ECFA was likely to have implications for Taiwans national security

28. No. 6

SC: ECFA

(The same survey statistics showedthat 50.8 percent of people did not agree with the

government, which has claimed: The signing of the ECFA with China will substantially

reduce unemployment.)

TC: The survey also suggested that 50.8 percent of respondents did not agree with the

government, which has said: The signing of an ECFA with China would substantially

reduce domestic unemployment.

29. No. 18

SC: ECFA

( The MAC [Mainland Affairs Council] has played things down by claimingthat the

agreements signed in the past were unrelated to politics and that the ECFA was an

economic matter and had absolutely nothing to do with politics )

TC: The Mainland Affairs Council has also tried to play things down by saying that it has

signed other agreements that were unrelated to politics and that the ECFA was an

economic matter that had absolutely nothing to do with politics.

All source and target extracts in the aforementioned examples are dialogic in explicitly

referencing the opinions and viewpoints of external sources. However, the endorsement

verbs (indicate), (point out) and (show) in examples 26 to 28 designatethe rapport of the source writers with the external viewpoints concerning the adverse

influences of the ECFA (cf. Cappon, 1991: 74; White, 2003: 270). Therefore, such an

endorsement is dialogically contractive and leaves little room for conciliation. Allowing

the writers to maintain distance and express disapproval, the verbs (claim) and (claim) in examples 28 and 29 render the external opinions doubtable and questionable

to maximize the dialogic space (Martin and White, 2005: 113). In contrast, the verbs

say/saidandsuggestedchosen in the translated counterparts carry neither coalition nor

non-alignment, but rather introduce a neutral framework to convey the perspectives of

the attributed sources. The target readers are allowed to make their own judgementswithout obvious intervention from the original writers (cf. Gidengil and Everitt, 2003:

214; Marin and White, 2005: 112).



23/31


Discussion

The shifts identified in the headline and main body sections were not caused by obligatory

cross-linguistic differences between Chinese and English but were selected by the

translators due to extra-linguistic factors. In this sense, the observed shifts can be betteraccounted for by the contextual dissimilarities discussed above.

As previously indicated (see Table 3), each translator may have been clearly aware of

the goals (micro and macro) of the translated piece and the constraints from both political

and professional ideologies. He/she would normally attempt to respond adequately to

these constraining forces. Acting as mediators, the translators may have assumed that

the translated commentaries should fulfil the following requirements: (1) catering to the

needs and interests of the target readers; (2) truthfully and effectively reproducing the

intended persuasive effects of the source commentaries; and (3) adhering to and

successfully relaying the political stance of the Taipei Times.The focus shifts in the target headlines may be a result of the translators realization of

the first requirement. Making the first impression, the headline section is a significant

component that seizes and maintains the interest of the readers. The headlines must

provide thereaders with a reason to be interested and a desire to learn more about the

topic (cf. Reah, 2002: 24; Van Dijk, 1991: 51). The unfavourable opinions of the ECFA

may have been assumed by the translators to embody the news values of conflict and

negativity and to be able to entice the target readership. The source headlines concerning

Taiwanese internal affairs or the governments of Taiwan and China may have been seen

as comparatively less important and unlikely to grasp the target readers attention;

therefore, these topics were not retained in the English translations. Moreover, constructing

target headlines that were appealing and eye-catching was probably considered essential

to meet the other two requirements envisaged by the translators. Only after the target

readers had been drawn in to begin reading the translated commentaries would they be

convinced of the opinions and viewpoints expressed therein.

After attracting the target readers, the translators may have supposed that another

important aim was to align the original writers and the diverse target readers. In this way,

the translated commentaries may be able to successfully persuade the intended readers to

accept the writers views and positions. Fulfilment of the persuasive purpose can also

enable the translators to sufficiently attend to the requirements related to the originalpersuasive effects and the political stance of the Taipei Times. Thus, the shifts of inter-

subjective positioning in the headline and main body sections may be attributed to the

translators modifications of the originally construed solidarity relations, owing to the

contextual differences between the source and target communicative situations.

During the writing process, most of the writers may have assumed that the pro-

independence source readers primarily shared the same anti-ECFA attitudes and opinions

as the Liberty Times. Therefore, the headlines were presented as monoglossically

declared assertions to characterize such opinions as unproblematic or uncontentious

and to establish solidarity with those like-minded readers through agreement.Alternatively, the writers may have utilized their prestigious status to exert some power

or dominance and to educate their readers on the negative consequences of the ECFA

by arranging more rigid and authoritative space, which suppresses other viewpoints.



24/31

Chen 715

Conversely, some writers formulated the headlines as heteroglossic propositions.

There are two possible contextual reasons. First, the writers may have been aware that

the implicated readers were ECFA supporters, on whom they implicitly or explicitly

commented in the source texts (such as the Taiwan government and China referred to in

the source headlines in examples 11 and 12). Thus, the writers adopted engagementresources and provided space for dialogic diversity in an attempt to avoid appearing

overly provocative. Second, the writers may have endeavoured to persuade readers with

the same political stance as the Liberty Times who had not yet decided on the issue or

possessed dissimilar attitudes. The solidarity relationship thus established was grounded

in tolerance. Although alternative views were invoked, only the positions of the writers

were advanced and recognized as authoritative due to the chosen engagement resources

being dialogically contractive.

In the main body section of the source commentaries, the ways in which various

engagement resources are utilized suggest the writers knowledge of commentary writingand their reader awareness. The writers may have been familiar with the characteristics

of commentary writing (i.e. the subjective and the persuasive functions) and presupposed

that bare assertions and agreement-based solidarity could not adequately respond to the

readers needs and achieve those two functions. Accordingly, approximately 70 percent

of the engagement resources in the source arguments are dialogically contractive (see

Table 6), with the majority being Disclaim expressions. In this case, the anti-ECFA

attitudes and opinions of the writers are straightforwardly and obviously represented.

Furthermore, the writers may have expected to use these contractive forms to foster

tolerance-based solidarity with one or more of the following types of pro-independencereaders and to guide these readers with the writers views (i.e. the only legitimate

positions): (1) likeminded readers who need further argumentation; (2) undecided

readers; and (3) readers with different standpoints. The first type may account for a major

proportion of the source readership, while the third type is a relatively minor proportion.

Although around 30 percent of the engagement resources used in the source arguments

are dialogically expansive, the negotiation space is enlarged primarily for the diverse

positions toward the benefits of the ECFA or the Taiwan governments concern for its

citizens. The tolerance-based solidarity thus constructed may assist the writers in

recognizing their readers uncertainty and suspicion about the above positive aspects asnatural and valid and then further validating their own anti-ECFA positions. Moreover,

the writers may have been aware of the auditory status of the Taiwan government as one

of the implicated readers and expected the expansive forms to enable them to engage

appropriately with the government through the increased ability to argue.

However, the majority of translators may have believed that the potentially more

diverse target readers had a tendency to be divided on issues regarding the ECFA and

might not side with the original writers and the Taipei Times. On this account, these

translators may have anticipated that such a diverse readership would question or oppose

the anti-ECFA statements of the source writers. If the target headlines, like their source

versions, were mainly dialogically inert, a relationship of solidarity could be permanently

destroyed because the target readers with different viewpoints might interpret the

monoglossic propositions in the target headlines as biased and misguided. With more

engagement resources, the solidarity relationship between the source writers (or the



25/31


Taipei Times) and the target readers can be maintained to a considerable degree by

acknowledging social heterogeneity, recognizing alternative viewpoints and tolerating

these perspectives (cf. White, 1998: 269). More specifically, the translators presumably

supposed that solidarity built on tolerance, which could actively open the door to other

possibilities, was more appropriate and effective for aligning the target readers thanagreement, as construed in most of the source headlines.

Comparatively few target headlines were formulated in the form of the bare assertion.

One primary reason behind the translators decision to present the headlines as

monoglossic assertions may have been that they assumed that even though their intended

readers did not necessarily share the political stance of the Taipei Times, they would

agree with the writers on the harmful effects of the ECFA on Taiwan, especially regarding

its economy. Therefore, the translators would attempt to construct solidarity with the

readers based on agreement. These monoglossic assertions might simultaneously inform

the foreign readers that the subjects conveyed in the headlines were the focal points ofthe debate over the ECFA at that particular time (cf. Martin and White, 2005: 1002).

The target arguments in the main body section retain most of the contractive resources

adopted by the writers, but they contain noticeably more expansive resources, exhibiting

a particular preference for Likelihood and Acknowledge expressions. The preservation

of the source contractive resources, which can clarify the personal views and evaluations

of the original writers, is indicative of the translators knowledge of the subjective nature of

commentary writing. Moreover, the translators may have thought that the contractive

resources (especially the expressions of Disclaim) could advance perception of the

writers standpoints as trustworthy and assist in establishing tolerance-based solidaritybetween the writers and the target readership, composed of foreigners from a range of

different countries. Thus, the readers, either those who were undecided or those with

different opinions, would become less resistant to the writers views with a dialogic

space for alternatives, albeit quite minimal. The target readers might be more likely to be

persuaded in the direction of the writers.

Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the target readers may have been assumed by the

translators to be more diverse and more likely to challenge the anti-ECFA statements of the

writers, as opposed to the source Taiwanese readers, most of whom agreed with the writers.

On that ground, the translators may have believed that to make the writers viewpointsreasonable and reliable to the target readers (especially those with opposing views), the

solidarity relationship established exclusively through the contractive forms was not

sufficient. In such a relationship, only the writers opinions were regarded as legitimate,

and the readers who disagreed may not have felt acknowledged and may have regarded the

views of the writers as extreme or biased. The translators, therefore, were likely to presume

that the translated arguments must contain more Likelihood and Acknowledge resources to

enhance the solidarity relationship with tolerance for multiple legitimate voices. In contrast

to the source expansive resources kept in the target versions, these newly added expressions

are principally used to present different perspectives on the negative consequences of the

ECFA. The translators may have thought that such an addition would ensure that the target

readers possessing contrary views felt recognized and genuinely invited to join the

discussion. In this way, the chance of the target readers actually adopting the writers



26/31

Chen 717

viewpoints (as highlighted through the contractive expressions) would be greatly increased

because the writers appeared willing to resume dialogue.

ConclusionA newspaper commentary must cultivate suitable relations of solidarity between the writer

and the expected readers to adequately achieve its persuasive purpose and to maximize its

communicative efficiency. When a commentary is rendered into another language, the

affiliation initially constructed in the source commentary must be appropriately amended,

and a new type of solidarity must facilitate a connection between the writer and the target

readers, who are a group of readers that the writer has not considered. The construction

process of solidarity for a translated piece is inevitably regulated by certain ideological

forces (especially political and professional ideologies) because commentary translation

is an institutional practice performed through collaborative teamwork. However,ideologies can influence the process only through the subjective interpretation of the

communicative situation by the translator (i.e. the mental context model).

The procedure of such solidarity formation has been insufficiently studied and has not

been well explored in existing research. Accordingly, this article has conducted a case

study of the English translations of Chinese commentaries about the signing of the ECFA

to achieve the following: (1) to examine the differences between the source and target

context models, and (2) to investigate how those variations lead to the ideological

construction of new solidarity relationships through translation shifts occurring in the

use of various linguistic resources of engagement.The context models for the original guest commentaries (from the Liberty Times) and the

English translations (from the Taipei Times) have been compared and determined to vary in

the categories of Setting, Participants, Events/Actions and Cognition. Although solidarity is

featured in both the source and target contexts as an essential social relationship between

the participants, that in the target context is specifically motivated by the translators

intention to achieve the communicative goals of translating commentaries while responding

appropriately to the governing political and professional ideologies. These ideologies are

not prevalent in the source context model. It should be noted that the source and target

context models discussed in this article are formulated mainly in terms of the differentreaders and production processes involved in the original and translated commentaries.

Further empirical studies are necessary to explore whether these models essentially reflect

those constructed by the writers and translators or access their actual existence.

As discussed above, the translation shifts in the headline section (including the focus

shift and the shift of dialogic nature) and those in the main body section concerning the

notable addition of expansive expressions of Likelihood and Acknowledge are associated

with the ideologically motivated construction of solidarity by the translators. Chiefly

aimed at establishing agreement-based solidarity with the likeminded Taiwanese readers,

the source headlines are predominantly presented as bare assertions. Furthermore, to

foster tolerance-based solidarity and assist in conveying the personal views of the writers

as exclusively authoritative, the ratio of contractive and expansive resources used in the

source arguments is 2.3:1 (see Table 6). Nonetheless, the translated commentaries exhibit

a preference for establishing tolerance-based solidarity in both the headline and main



27/31


body sections to convince the diverse foreign readers and fulfil ideological requirements.

Apart from preserving the contractive expressions employed in the source versions, the

translated arguments contain considerably more expansive resources with the purpose of

making the writers views appear more logical and less prejudiced to the target readership,

which facilitates the reproduction of the original persuasive effects.By probing the construction process of solidarity in the translated commentaries, this

article hopes to illuminate the correlations between ideologies, the context model of the

translator and the arrangement of inter-subjective positioning, and to provide insights

to researchers and practitioners in the field of commentary writing and translation.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Taipei University of Technology. An earlier

version of this article was presented at the Seventh International Conference on

Translation, 2123 June 2010, at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain. I am

grateful to the conference participants for helpful suggestions. I would also like to express

my gratitude to Professor Teun A. van Dijk and the reviewer of this article for their

constructive comments. All remaining errors and inadequacies, of course, are my own.

Notes

1. According to White (1998, 2003), epistemic modals, modal adjuncts and modal attributes

under the engagement system are defined from a dialogic perspective rather than from the

notion of truth value in most existing studies on modality and evidentially (see Chafe and

Nichols, 1986; Lyons, 1977; Palmer, 1986), which presume that the above-mentioned modalexpressions primarily act to indicate the uncertainty of the speaker/writer concerning the

validity of a proposition.

2. The information about the Taipei Times is mainly based on the online introduction to the

newspaper retrieved on 10 January 2010 from www.taipeitimes.com/News/ About_Us

3. In the two examples, Nos 3 and 21 refer respectively to the third and twenty-first sets of

source and translated commentaries listed in the Appendix.

4. The Chinese modal verb (will), which appears in examples 13 and 18, is similar to the

English modal verb willdiscussed herein. It is also unclear whether or not the original writers

adopted to convey the epistemic meaning. Therefore, this Chinese modal verb is not

regarded as a Likelihood expression in the case study analysis.

References

Brown K, Hempson-Jones J and Pennisi J (2010)Investment across the Taiwan Strait: How Taiwans

Relationship with China Affects its Position in the Global Economy. L

Discourse Society- The Ideological Construction of Solidarity in Translation Comentaries

Documents

Transcript of Discourse Society- The Ideological Construction of Solidarity in Translation Comentaries