-->PONE-D-25-02479-->-->“We must work tirelessly to promote …”: Mediating interpersonal commitment to material processes in English translation of Chinese political discourse-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 Jun 13 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,

Fasih Ahmed

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 stating the following financial disclosure:

“Funder: Project of Guangdong Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Planning 2024

Project Title: A Study on the Projection Language Features in Political Discourse and Their Translation

Project Number: GD24CWY13”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in 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 refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

I have received the comments from reviewers and recommends major changes in the article. The concerns regarding the paper include, justification of the scale development, methodological limitations, Generalizability and Ethical Oversight.

Regards,

Fasih

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->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

**********

-->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: This paper examines the ways in which interpersonal commitment in the English translation of Chinese political discourse is mediated through evaluative items within appraisal system framework. While the topic is interesting and the method is proper, there are a couple of areas where the paper needs to be reworked in order to be publishable.

1. The authors need to provide more justification of corpus selection. While the corpus is authoritative, further discussion on potential biases or limitations in using Xi Jinping’s discourse as the primary dataset would increase the generalization of the research results.

2. The authors need to be aware of the potential international readers, not just Chinese readers. So when, for example, writing sth like “president Xi”, it might be more acceptable by using “Chinese president Xi Jinping” when it firstly is used.

3. Some sure it is reliable to make a certain argument. For example, “which differs from previous findings on mental processes”, here it would be helpful if some references are included.

4. Some sections contain very complex sentence structures. Please break them down, which is also related to comment 2 to take readers into account when writing English.

Basically, I would recommend it for publication after minor revision.

Reviewer #2: 1. Title Appropriateness

• The title is clear and indicates both the development and validation of a scale for digital resilience in adolescents. However:

o The term “digital resilience” is relatively novel and should be clearly conceptualized in the introduction to fully justify the use of the term.

o The context (e.g., cultural/geographic setting) is missing in the title. This limits the scope of understanding the applicability of the scale across populations.

2. Abstract

• The abstract lacks clarity regarding:

o The specific research gap this study addresses.

o The main findings of each phase (EFA/CFA) are not explicitly summarized.

o The implications are superficially mentioned without indicating the practical value of the scale for educators or policymakers.

o The methods are described in a general manner, without emphasizing the rationale behind the three phases.

3. Introduction

• The problem statement is vague—while digital risk and resilience are mentioned, the link between digital spaces and the need for a unique adolescent resilience scale is not strongly established.

• The literature gap is implied but not explicitly stated.

• The rationale for creating a new scale (rather than adapting or using existing ones) is not convincingly presented.

• The objectives could be more clearly listed for better coherence.

4. Literature Review

• Lacks critical engagement with prior scales measuring resilience—what specific limitations in those scales necessitate a new one?

• The concept of “digital resilience” is not adequately theorized using global or cross-cultural literature.

• More recent sources should be incorporated; some references seem dated for such a dynamic topic.

• The review doesn’t adequately support the dimensions later proposed in the scale.

5. Theoretical Framework

• There is no strong grounding in an established psychological or socio-cognitive theory of resilience.

• A diagrammatic representation or clear paragraph stating how theory underpins item generation would improve clarity.

• Lacks integration of developmental theories relevant to adolescents in digital contexts.

6. Methodology / Analysis

• Sampling: The justification for sample size and the geographic spread of participants is limited. Is the sample representative?

• Item generation: The process of item selection and reduction is insufficiently detailed. How were items retained or discarded?

• EFA/CFA: While the statistical techniques are correct, technical details (like factor loadings, KMO, Bartlett’s test, model fit indices) are not deeply interpreted.

• The cross-validation or test-retest reliability was not mentioned—this limits psychometric robustness.

7. Quantitative Findings

• Tables and figures are informative, but the narrative explanation is underdeveloped.

• Interpretation of factor analysis findings is superficial—e.g., why were these specific factors retained?

• Reliability statistics are reported but not critiqued—are they sufficient for real-world usage?

• The naming of factors appears intuitive but is not justified through strong theoretical or empirical linkage.

8. Discussion and Conclusion

• The discussion repeats results rather than offering deeper interpretative insight.

• There’s a lack of critical reflection on the limitations of the scale or how cultural/digital divides might affect generalizability.

• Implications are discussed broadly and lack concrete applications in digital education, policy, or adolescent psychology.

• The conclusion does not tie back well to the objectives or offer a vision for future research.

9. Academic Rigour

• While statistically sound, the conceptual and theoretical depth is weak.

• The study leans too heavily on quantitative methods without incorporating qualitative insights (e.g., interviews or expert evaluations).

• Lacks a section on ethical considerations for adolescent participants, especially when dealing with digital exposure.

10. References

• Some key references are missing—especially recent work on digital well-being and adolescent development.

• Over-reliance on a few sources to support multiple claims.

• Referencing style seems consistent but should be updated if the journal demands APA 7th or specific formatting.

Reviewer #3: This paper has investigated the translation choices in political texts from Chinese to English, focusing on the mediation of interpersonal commitment to circumstances coupled with material processes. Employing the theoretical framework of reinstantiation within Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), this research has provided a comprehensive description of how and why certain circumstances were shifted in translation, with reference to grammatical forms and possible motivations based on data extracted from a corpus of institutional translation.

The whole paper is divided into 7 parts. In Part One, the authors introduce the academic background of political translation. In Part Two, the authors review studies that have focused on political translation. In Part Three, the authors explain the theoretical framework of this paper. Part Four focuses on the methodology and presents the top ten verbs of material processes in Table One. Part Five, titled "Quantitative Findings," presents the results of this study. In this part, the authors not only present the research results but also analyze the translation methods. In Part Six, the authors discuss lexical choices in translation. In the end, the conclusion is drawn.

The presentation, writing skills, data and materials used, and the theoretical basis on which this paper relies are all rich and reliable. The data analysis is valuable and can be used.

This article has met the publication requirements.

Suggestions for Improvement:

It would be better if the authors provide several concrete examples in full sentences for Table 2 to prove the translation choices.

Examples from Ex. 2 lack concrete information, such as page numbers.

**********

-->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:  Tao Li

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Summiya Azam

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: review.doc

-->PONE-D-25-02479R1-->-->“We must work tirelessly to promote …”: Mediating interpersonal commitment to material processes in English translation of Chinese political discourse-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 Jul 20 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,

Fasih Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Author,

After analyzing the commnents of the reviewers, I have reached to the decision of major revison.

Regards,

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

[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.

-->PONE-D-25-02479R2-->-->“We must work tirelessly to promote …”: Mediating interpersonal commitment to material processes in English translation of Chinese political discourse-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 Dec 07 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,

Awni Etaywe, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE and for your thoughtful work on this topic. Both reviewers found your study to be a valuable contribution to the field and well-aligned with the journal’s scope. They have recommended minor revisions to improve clarity and precision in presentation.

Based on the reviewers’ feedback and my own assessment, I concur that your manuscript requires only minor adjustments before it can be considered for acceptance. Please address each of the reviewers’ comments point by point and include a revised version of the manuscript with changes clearly marked.

Please provide a detailed response letter outlining how each comment was addressed and indicating where revisions have been made in the manuscript.

Once these minor revisions are incorporated, your manuscript should be suitable for publication.

Kind regards,

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

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

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 #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: This manuscript touches on a very interesting topic. The selected political texts provide a good source for investigating the shifts of interpersonal meaning between the Chinese original text (ST) and its English translated text (TT). SFL is a systemic approach to analyse how interpersonal meaning is instantiated in the ST and how the meaning is re-instantiated in the TT. The methodology shows that, by focusing on the pattern of “circumstances + material processes”, the authors had made a scrutinized examination of the translation shifts in grammatical forms. The findings provide a good foundation for further investigation into the potential translation shifts in terms of interpersonal commitment. Therefore, the overall design of this project is quite promising.

The manuscript is full of potential. However, a few issues need to be addressed before publication.

1. Page 5, “Prescriptive studies offer detailed description of what really happened in political

translation, mostly relying on a corpus method.”

There is a typo; this should be an explanation of ‘Descriptive studies’. Furthermore, after introducing the prescriptive and descriptive approaches, it is better to clarify which approach this project takes.

2. Page 5-6, “More specifically, the instantiation cline involves system, genre/register, text type, text, and reading, where system represents the most general end of meaning potential and reading stands for subjectified meaning, the most actual end.”

This may be a bit hard to follow for readers from a non-SFL background. Ideally, it is better to break it down a bit for the readers. The authors may consider, at least, providing a figure of the instantiation cline and directing the readers to a relevant reference. The authors can use the one in Martin and White (2005) or another work they prefer.

3. Page 11, “The top five circumstances are buduan 不断 (continually), quanmian 全面 (fully), jiji 积极 (actively), xietiao 协调 (coordinately), and qieshi 切实 (practically)…These circumstances boost the force of the material processes, thus raising the mobilizing effects of the political communication.”

The manuscript states that all circumstances included in this project refer to an instance of intensification. From the perspective of Appraisal, it seems hard to take 协调 (coordinately) and qieshi 切实 (practically) as instances of intensification. Would the authors please clarify the reasons for identifying the two items as ‘GRADUATION: intensification’?

3. Page 14, Example (4), under the heading of “Using prepositional phrases to achieve equal interpersonal commitment”:

[ST]

以 更加 开放 的 胸襟 和 更加 积极 的 态度 [[促进]] 地区 合作 .

with an opener mind and more positive attitude promote regional cooperation

[TT]

… and promoting regional cooperation with an open mind and enthusiasm.

Comparatives are commonly used as intensifiers; they usually indicate an upscaling of intensity or of quantity. In this example, the two comparatives in the ST were omitted in the TT, this would have an impact on the rhetorical force and eventually affect the interpersonal commitment. Would the authors please clarify the reason why this example was taken as achieving an equal interpersonal commitment?

4. Page 15, Example (8):

[ST]

不久 将 全面 [[建成]] 小康社会,

soon will comprehensively build a moderately prosperous society.

[TT]

… and will soon bring the building of a moderately prosperous society to a successful completion.

“…In example (8), the degree adverb “quanmian 全面 fully” was changed into the adjective ‘successful’, indicating a judgment of capacity.”

In the English text – ‘a successful completion’ – completion as the target of this evaluation refers to a thing rather than a behaviour.

5. Page 17, Example (10):

[ST]

我们 要 坚持不懈 [[抓好]] 宪法 实施 工作 …

We must persistently without slack grasp the Constitution implementation work

[TT]

We must persistently ensure the implementation of the Constitution … Idiom phrase

“…In example (10), jianchi buxie 坚持不懈 is turned into “persistently”, whereby the rich

connotation of determination of the phrase is lost in translation.”

The authors will need to elaborate on the explanation for this instance, because at the semantic level there seems to be no shift.

6. Page 19, Example (13):

[ST]

… 稳步 [[推进]] 城镇化 健康 发展

steadily promote urbanization’s healthy development

[TT]

… and promote well-planned and healthy urbanization.

“In example (13), the adverb ‘wenbu 稳步 (steadily)’ is converted to an adjective ‘well-planned’, which serves as a modifier of the head ‘urbanization’. Using terms from appraisal theory, the meaning of force has been turned into appreciation of ‘composition’ [39], that is, attaching the value of balance to ‘urbanization’.”

Would the authors please clarify the reason for identifying wenbu 稳步 (steadily) as an instance of ‘GRADUATION: intensification’?

Reviewer #5: Please find my comments attached in the pdf. I think you revised your paper according to the reviewers comments properly. However, I have provided you with further comments to improve the quality of your work

**********

-->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 #4: No

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-02479_Reviewers report.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-02479_R2.pdf

-->PONE-D-25-02479R3-->-->“We must work tirelessly to promote …”: Mediating interpersonal commitment to material processes in English translation of Chinese political discourse-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 Dec 20 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,

Awni Etaywe, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Some minor revisions as suggested by Reviewer 1 still need to be responded to and integrated into the paper itself.

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

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 #4: (No Response)

**********

-->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 #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

-->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 #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: Page 15, Example (8):

[ST]

不久 将 全面 [[建成]] 小康社会,

soon will comprehensively build a moderately prosperous society.

[TT]

… and will soon bring the building of a moderately prosperous society to a successful completion.

“…In example (8), the degree adverb “quanmian 全面 fully” was changed into the

adjective ‘successful’, indicating a judgment of capacity.”

In the English text – ‘a successful completion’ – completion as the target of this

evaluation refers to a thing rather than a behaviour.

//Response:

This is a case of grammatical metaphor. Completion, while it is a thing, is actually a nominalization of a verb, referring to the action of “complete”, hence a judgment of how

well the thing is done.

- Yes, we can discuss this case as inscribed appreciation & invoked judgement. The authors may consider providing the above clarification for the reader.

Page 11, “The top five circumstances are buduan 不断 (continually), quanmian 全面 (fully), jiji 积极 (actively), xietiao 协调 (coordinately), and qieshi 切实 (practically)…These circumstances boost the force of the material processes, thus raising the mobilizing effects of the political communication.” The manuscript states that all circumstances included in this project refer to an instance of intensification. From the perspective of Appraisal, it seems hard to take 协调 (coordinately) and qieshi 切实 (practically) as instances of intensification. Would the authors please clarify the reasons for identifying the two items as ‘GRADUATION:

intensification’?

//Response: Thank you. This is indeed a good question. Actually, we included circumstances with evaluative sense of frequency, degree and manner, going beyond the scope of ‘GRADUATION: intensification’. We have corrected the relevant parts to avoid confusion as follows:

In the case of the current study, we aim to observe how the meaning of force has come to enhance the material processes in Chinese political texts, and the correspondent translation choices. That means, only those circumstances that carry the meaning of evaluative force (i.e. degree, frequency and manner) are included for the current study.

- The term ‘intensification’ in the GRADUATION system may cause some confusion. It refers to the author’s up/down scaling of qualities and processes, and manner is an important resource. For this case, the attitudinal meanings in 协调 (coordinately) and 切实 (practically) are quite obvious. However, my concern is whether these two items indicate a subjective scaling.

Page 19, Example (13):

[ST]

… 稳步 [[推进]] 城镇化 健康 发展

steadily promote urbanization’s healthy development

[TT]

… and promote well-planned and healthy urbanization.

“In example (13), the adverb ‘wenbu 稳步 (steadily)’ is converted to an adjective ‘wellplanned’,

which serves as a modifier of the head ‘urbanization’. Using terms from appraisal theory, the meaning of force has been turned into appreciation of ‘composition’ [39], that is, attaching the value of balance to ‘urbanization’.” Would the authors please clarify the reason for identifying wenbu 稳步 (steadily) as an instance of ‘GRADUATION: intensification’?

//Response:

wenbu 稳步 (steadily) is a case of manner, not intensification. See our correction above.

- The same concern as above.

**********

-->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 #4: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-02479_Reviewers report2.docx

-->PONE-D-25-02479R4-->-->“We must work tirelessly to promote …”: Mediating interpersonal commitment to material processes in English translation of Chinese political discourse-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 Dec 31 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,

Awni Etaywe, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

The manuscript presents a clearly structured study with sound methodology and results that are relevant to the field. The contribution is valuable and meets PLOS ONE’s criteria for technical rigor and clarity. The paper is publishable; only minor revisions are needed to strengthen the clarity and transparency of the article, particularly in its focus on the Appraisal system—should the authors incorporate the reviewers’ suggestions

Overall, I recommend Minor Revision. The manuscript will be suitable for publication once the authors address the reviewers’ comments.

Best Regards,

Dr Awni Etaywe

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

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 #4: (No Response)

**********

-->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 #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: Page 11, “The top five circumstances are buduan 不断 (continually), quanmian 全面 (fully), jiji 积极 (actively), xietiao 协调 (coordinately), and qieshi 切实(practically)…These circumstances boost the force of the material processes, thus raising the mobilizing effects of the political communication.” The manuscript states that all circumstances included in this project refer to an instance of intensification.

From the perspective of Appraisal, it seems hard to take 协调 (coordinately) and qieshi切实 (practically) as instances of intensification. Would the authors please clarify the reasons for identifying the two items as ‘GRADUATION:intensification’?

//Response: Thank you. This is indeed a good question. Actually, we included circumstances with evaluative sense of frequency, degree and manner, going beyond the scope of ‘GRADUATION: intensification’. We have corrected the relevant parts to avoid confusion as follows:

In the case of the current study, we aim to observe how the meaning of force has come to enhance the material processes in Chinese political texts, and the correspondent translation choices. That means, only those circumstances that carry the meaning of evaluative force (i.e. degree, frequency and manner) are included for the current study.

- The term ‘intensification’ in the GRADUATION system may cause some confusion. It refers to the author’s up/down scaling of qualities and processes, and manner is an important resource. For this case, the attitudinal meanings in 协调 (coordinately) and切实 (practically) are quite obvious. However, my concern is whether these two items indicate a subjective scaling.

//Response:

You are right to point out that 协调 (coordinately) and 切实 (practically) do not necessarily intensify the verb in terms of degree. However, our research design deliberately sets out to track any evaluative adverb—regardless of whether it inherently scales the process up or down—as long as it carries attitudinal meaning. In other words, some of the adverbs involve scaling of the process, some might not. But we counted all of them as long as they have evaluative meanings. And we wanted to observe how these evaluative meanings are upscaled or downscaled in translation in terms of interpersonal commitment.

- Thanks for the clarification. I would recommend the authors clarify in the ‘theoretical framework’ that the analyses of this paper were concerned with GRADUATION and ATTITUDE. This will be my last comment. I have no further concerns.

**********

-->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 #4: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

“We must work tirelessly to promote …”: Mediating interpersonal commitment to material processes in English translation of Chinese political discourse

PONE-D-25-02479R5

Dear Dr. Chen,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Awni Etaywe, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive revisions to the manuscript, “We must work tirelessly to promote …”: Mediating interpersonal commitment to material processes in English translation of Chinese political discourse. It is clear that you have carefully addressed each of the reviewers’ comments, providing clarifications where needed and strengthening the theoretical framing, particularly in relation to GRADUATION and ATTITUDE within the Appraisal framework.

The revised manuscript is now clearly structured, methodologically sound, and theoretically coherent. Your responses demonstrate strong engagement with the reviewers’ concerns, and the amendments - especially the clarification of decisions on evaluative force, the treatment of manner versus intensification, and the explanations of grammatical metaphor - significantly enhance the clarity and transparency of the study.

The contribution is valuable, and the updated version fully meets criteria (in place) for technical rigor, accuracy, and clarity. I have no remaining concerns.

Overall, I recommend "Accept."

Best regards,

Academic Editor, Dr Awni Etaywe

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 #4: 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 #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: 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 #4: (No Response)

**********

-->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 #4: No

**********