PONE-D-24-48903Translator as mediator to mend the psychological gap between ST and TT: a corpus-based study on C-E translation of modal verbs in Chinese government work reports (2000-2022)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michal Ptaszynski, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and previous work in the [introduction, conclusion, etc.].

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

[If the overlap is with the authors’ own works: Moreover, upon submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript, or any related manuscript, is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. If related work has been submitted to PLOS ONE or elsewhere, authors must include a copy with the submitted article. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the overlap between related submissions (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts).]

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission and further consideration of the manuscript is dependent on the text overlap being addressed in full. Please ensure that your revision is thorough as failure to address the concerns to our satisfaction may result in your submission not being considered further.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript (PONE-D-24-48903) deals with the rendering of modal verbs in Chinese Government Work Reports from 2000 to 2022, exploring how to bridge the psychological gap between ST and TT. There are a relatively detailed, comprehensive literature review, a clear research methodology, a sound analysis, and a reliable conclusion. The article will be improved in quality if the author(s) can summarize the achievements on the C-E translation of the Reports and modal articles, and improve the language and style. On the one hand, these achievements can indicate whether the present study is original and can help strengthen the depth of analysis; on the other, the linguistic and stylistic improvements ensure the normativity of the article as a piece of scholarly work.

Reviewer #2: This study investigates the mediating role of translators in bridging the psychological gap between the source text (ST) and the target text (TT) through a corpus-based analysis. It specifically examines the translation of modal verbs in Chinese Government Work Reports (GWRs) from 2000 to 2022. The study is interesting and well-written, employing an appropriate methodology. However, the following areas require further attention:

1. Insufficient Review of Previous Studies: The theoretical framework needs to be strengthened by incorporating more relevant studies from existing literature.

2. Underdeveloped Discussion Section: The discussion should be expanded to include a comparison of the results with findings from both theoretical and empirical studies.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript investigates the role of translators as mediators, focusing on the psychological gap between the source text (ST) and target text (TT) in the context of modal verbs in Chinese-to-English translations of government work reports (2000–2022). Employing a corpus-based approach, the study offers insightful observations on linguistic patterns, translation strategies, and the socio-cultural implications of modal verb usage.

The research aligns with current interests in corpus linguistics, translation studies, and discourse analysis, making a valuable contribution to the field. The corpus-based methodology is well-suited for exploring linguistic and translation patterns systematically. I strongly recommend this article for publication with a minor changes.

1. Merge Introduction and Literature Review:

The introduction and literature review have overlapping content. Merging them into a single section will streamline the structure and reduce redundancy.

2. The manuscript would benefit from referencing more recent and relevant studies to strengthen its theoretical framework. I recommend citing the following works:

Kaibao, H., & Afzaal, M. (2024). The translation teaching platform based on multilingual corpora of Xi Jinping: The Governance of China: Design, resources and applications. Acta Psychologica, 242, 104110.

Liu, K., & Afzaal, M. (2021). Syntactic complexity in translated and non-translated texts: A corpus-based study of simplification. Plos one, 16(6), e0253454.

Li, Y., Afzaal, M., & Yin, Y. (2024). A lexicon-based diachronic comparison of emotions and sentiments in literary translation: A case study of five Chinese versions of David Copperfield. Plos one, 19(2), e0297101.

Afzaal, M., & Du, X. (2023). Syntactic complexity in translated eHealth discourse of COVID-19: A comparable parallel corpus approach. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies, 10(1), 3-19.

Reviewer #4: Dear Authors,

I have carefully read the manuscript and find that it shows some originality in examining the psychological gap between source and target texts through modal verb analysis, with a well-designed corpus method and a rigours theoretical framework. The manuscript is well-written and is of good readability. However,

1. The findings section (Part 4) requires some revisions and elaborations. Some citations of existing literature appear superficial and lack sufficient engagement with the cited works. For instance, when referencing Nida (2001), Baker (2011), and Halliday (2010), the paper would benefit from more elaborations on how these scholars’ perspectives specifically relate to your findings.

2. The writing style of this paragraph is of monotonous structure, and the numbered list format creates a mechanical presentation that lacks cohesion between ideas. The content should be reorganized into a cohesive paragraph with natural transitions between ideas. For example,

Third, the observed modal value shifts have several implications for the translation process and its impact on the TT: 1. By translating high-value modal verbs into medium and low-value equivalents, translators create a more flexible and reader-friendly tone in the English versions of the GWRs. This adjustment may make the reports more palatable to an international audience, potentially reducing the psychological distance between the government and its readers (Nida, 2001). 2. The shift from predominantly high-value modal verbs in Chinese to a more balanced distribution in English reflects an awareness of cultural differences in expressing authority and commitment. This adaptation demonstrates the translator's role as a cultural mediator (Hatim & Mason, 1990). 3. While the literal meanings of modal verbs may change, these shifts often aim to maintain pragmatic equivalence, ensuring that the intended effect of the original text is preserved in the translation (Baker, 2011). 4. The more varied use of modal values in the English translations may encourage greater reader engagement by presenting information in a less absolute manner, allowing for more nuanced interpretation (Halliday, 2010).

3. There are some minor tweaks in grammar:

(1) Use the full forms of abbreviations in the title: ST (source text), TT (target text), C-E (Chinese-to-English)

(2) This study aims to explore how translators function as mediators in this process by focusing specifically on the translation of modal verbs in Chinese government work reports from 2000 to 2022. This sentence should be clear and concise.

The author should consult a native speaker to check their grammar.

Overall, this is an interesting paper. After revision, I strongly recommend its publication in PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #5: The authors investigate the role of translators as cultural mediators, using the translation of political texts as a case study and focusing on the rendition in English of modal verbs. While the study's intention is good, the methodology and findings are significantly flawed.

1) The quality of writing needs to be significantly improved to enhance the readers’ experiences.

2) References may be needed when authors make profound claims like in the case of “Particularly, in political and official discourse, such as Chinese government work reports, the translator's role becomes even more critical. These documents are not merely informative texts but are vehicles for conveying policies, intentions, and national ethos.”

3) Psychological distance in translation: The explanation of this concept based on Nida, Venuti, and House does not expose the meaning intended. These authors’ writings do not explicitly focus on psychology, and to consider their discussions as such is unwarranted. If the authors interpret their writings as psychological distance, they are welcome to make their case.

4) The discussion of the translator as a cultural mediator is seriously lacking citations from prominent scholars and works. Mention should be made of Bassnett and Lefevere, who coined the term “cultural turn” in translation.

5) The literature review is scaringly scanty. It does not critically engage with the various concepts under discussion here, and no link is established between the elements discussed. For instance, what is the connection between psychological distance, culture, and government work? Why is it important to connect these variables in this research? Where is the gap in the literature, and how does this study address that gap? This claim, “This literature review reveals a gap in the research concerning the specific role of translators in mediating psychological distance through the translation of modal verbs in Chinese government work reports,” is not substantiated; it is imaginary.

6) Structure of the paper: First, the research questions should come after the literature review. They should not be placed at the end of the introduction. Second, the theoretical foundation should precede the literature review. The theoretical framework should have its own choice rationale and, potentially, a gap that needs to be filled. The study needs to contribute to the theoretical framework to valorize its usage in this study.

7) Methodology: There are several issues with the methodology and design of this study:

- There is a need to justify why the English corpus has more tokens than the Chinese corpus

- Why was Halliday’s classification chosen? What other classifications, if they exist, are not suitable for this study?

- Some concepts need to be explained or reiterated here, including “operational norms” and “psychological distance.”

- What are “representative modals verbs,” and how were they determined?

- There are also issues of reliability and validity in this methodology. Were the judgments made regarding psychological distance or the meaning of modal verbs in the corpora vetted by a third party? How? Was there a criteria or a set of guidelines to follow?

- What is the background of the translators who extracted the modals and their translations? How proficient are they in English and Chinese? How could their being Chinese or English native speakers influence their judgments, and how was this mitigated in the research?

- The study is based on the assumption that translators consciously mediate between source and target text. What proof is there to show this was the case with these translations? Did government translators consciously mediate between ST and TT? If so, how do the authors know?

- What criteria were used to classify models into the high and low levels? And what effort was made to ensure that all translators classified the modals the same way? Was the reliability checked?

8) Findings

Section 4.1

There is a fundamental flaw in the interpretation of “cultural mediator” here. It is unclear how this is achieved in the translation of modal verbs as outlined in this study. Authors state: “The translation of "Yao," the most frequent modal verb, provides a particularly insightful example of the translator's mediating function. As shown in Table 4, "Yao" is predominantly translated into four English modal verbs: will (36.11%), must (20.62%), need (19.16%), and should (17.94%). This distribution reveals the translator's nuanced interpretation of the source text's modal force, adapting it to suit different contexts and rhetorical purposes in the target language.” The problem is that this is an assumption since there is no evidence showing that the translator intended to culturally mediate these translations. Second, the authors need to prove that this was mediation by, for instance, showing how these modals are generally translated, or where they have been alternatively translated, for example, in non-government texts. Third, the assumption that all modals in the Chinese corpus were “mediated” seems to oversimplify cultural mediation in translation.

Explications and omissions are obvious translation techniques. How translators employ them here to “mediate culture” is unclear and has not been explained.

Section 4.2

The same argument above holds for this section. Nothing more than the author’s instinct justifies the claim that translators intentionally employed the English equivalent as “cultural mediators.”

Secondly, the lack of definitions in previous sections significantly hamper the understanding of this finding. Authors should have or should explain, high-value and low-value models. There is also a serious need to prove that the translation of modals into low-value modals in English is deliberate, not routine.

Factor Analysis

This section appears to repeat previous concepts without future explication. Plus, the authors introduce concepts like “ positive and negative poles,”” Macro-level translation norms,” “international discourse system,” and “collectivist orientation of China,” which were not explained in the literature review and do not clearly align with anything else in the study. They are new and out of place.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Chuanmao Tian

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Qiang Jason Li

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Translators as mediators to mend the psychological gap between source text and target text: A corpus-based study on the Chinese English translation of modal verbs in the Chinese Report on the Work of the Government (2000-2022)

PONE-D-24-48903R1

Dear Dr. Tian,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michal Ptaszynski, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript (PONE-D-24-48903R1) has substantiated the literature review, modified the theoretical framework, strengthened the discussion, and improved the language and style. It would be better if all the section headings are numbered (the revision has numbered only the INTRODUCTION section).

Reviewer #3: Author has made all changes substantially. based on the respones, and authors' contribution, I recommend this article to be published.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: This paper examines the role of translators as mediators in bridging the psychological

gap between source texts and target texts through a corpus-based analysis of

Chinese English translation of modal verbs in the Chinese government work reports. The topic is interesting, the method is proper, and it is now also presented in a well-structured manner after revision. The revised version has fully addressed all previous feedback, significantly enhancing the strength and clarity of the study.

Overall, this revised manuscript is ready for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Chuanmao Tian

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #6: No

**********