Translation-based discourse analysis : a case study of the fourth communiqué on law-based governance by the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China

Are political translations faithful? What happens during the translation of political terminology? How are policy instruments framed and operationalised under different systems? How does the institution use translation to achieve its political agenda? Is it possible to hold institutions accountable for their words? Political translations are uncontroversially discursive. That is, they comprise a mode of representing, producing and reproducing power. However, their critical role in shaping discourse has been neglected in traditional Discourse Studies (DS). Despite growing interest in Translation Studies (TS), research is often eurocentric. This paper argues for Translation-based Discourse Analysis (TDA), a comparative approach that critically interprets translation shifts in discourse that happen during translation. This paper presents a case study of a Chinese policy document and its English translation: the Communiqué on law-based governance of the Fourth plenary session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. Through TDA, this paper offers readings of the Communiqué that highlight the textual manipulations that happen during translation. Namely, the manipulation of tone, identity and ideas: First, lexical shifts in the translation of “坚持” (jianchi) modulates the TT’s tone, which influences how the target audience feels about content. Second, shifts in grammatical subject engineer identity through subject representation, projecting a sense of solidarity within the source culture that distances outsiders. Last, discursive negotiations of power happen through ideological loading, which shift the ideological meaning of rule of law. For discussion, this paper assesses the strengths and limitations TDA inherits from traditional discourse analysis, highlighting its unique advantage in circumnavigating theoretic-methodological bias. However, it also notes a substantive comparative challenge, which restricts its applicability across contexts. Further, it raises a new problem: How do we think about accountability with respects to institutionality? In sum, this paper sets up a prototype of what TDA might look like. Although the present model might be incomplete, the task is not impossible. If we are to have any hope of understanding the emerging, highly-globalized world order and the interlinguistic, intercultural negotiations of power that come with it; then, we need to create a the comparative means to study such discursive interactions in translation.Master of Arts (Translation and Interpretation