Figure 3 shows the stances in both English and Chinese news headlines. It can be seen that in the English news headlines, the most prominent is the negative-U.S. stance with 33 occurrences. The negative-China stance and neutral-U.S. stance make up a considerable amount with 12 and 8 instances respectively. However, very few positive-U.S. (3 instances) and positive-China (6 instances) stances are reported by the American media. There are 8 occurrences of neutral stance towards the United States and 4 towards China. The Chinese news headlines contain an equally prominent number of occurrences (35) of negative-U.S. stance. There are 9 positive-China and 2 positive-U.S. stance occurrences in the Chinese headlines, and 6 instances of neutral stance towards the U.S. and 4 towards China.

Figure 4 shows the most prominent stance meditation modes in the transedited news headlines. The primary mode retains the negative-U.S. stance (Neg U.S. to Neg U.S.) in the Chinese news headlines with 35 occurrences; other noticeable modes are changing a neutral stance to a negative stance towards the United States (Neu U.S. to Neg U.S.) and changing a negative-China stance into a negative-U.S. stance (Neg CHN to Neg U.S.), each occurring 7 times. Moreover, shifting a negative-U.S. stance into a positive-China stance (Neg U.S. to Pos CHN), something which should not be ignored, occurred 6 times. Generally speaking, a negative stance towards the U.S. and a positive towards China is the most apparent mode in stance mediation.

Figure 5 demonstrates the media’s engagement in taking the mediated stances. It shows that the English news headlines take both monoglossic and heteroglossic devices to manifest their stance-taking, with 39 and 27 occurrences respectively. In the Chinese news headlines, however, heteroglossia is the most commonly seen device with 49 occurrences, but monoglossia is rarely used, with only 1 occurrence. Therefore, changing monoglossia to heteroglossia and retaining heteroglossia are the major stance-taking patterns in the transedited Chinese news headlines under investigation.

After quantifying the engagement devices used in English and Chinese news headlines, we examined the correlation between the stance mediation modes and stance-taking patterns. Due to limited space, Figure 6 only presents the 4 most prominent stance mediation modes: Neg U.S. to Neg U.S., Neu U.S. to Neg U.S., Neg CHN to Neg U.S., and Neg U.S. to Pos CHN. It shows that in the Neg U.S. to Neg U.S. mode, the monoglossic to heteroglossic pattern is the mostly applied (23 instances). Such a stance taking pattern can also be found in the mediated stance modes of Neu U.S. to Neg U.S. and Neg CHN to Neg U.S. (6 instances). However, in the Neg U.S. to Pos CHN mode, two patterns are evenly adopted: monoglossia to heteroglossia and retaining heteroglossia. Generally, the mediated stance towards the United States is usually negative and the stance towards China is usually positive. This negative-U.S./positive-China stance is dominantly taken via the pattern of monoglossia to heteroglossia. The following section will provide a detailed case analysis to illustrate the detailed deviations.

This section will give a case analysis to demonstrate how stance is mediated and taken by the Chinese media via transedition. The examples are selected from the corpus to illustrate the stance-mediation modes of Neg U.S. to Neg U.S., Neu U.S. to Neg U.S., Neg CHN to Neg U.S. and Neg U.S. to Pos CHN, as well as the stance-taking measures via engagement devices.

Example 2 is collected from news headlines on the United States’ request to arrest Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s CFO. Both English headlines demonstrate a negative-U.S. stance in this incident. In the first English headline, TheWashington Post uses the expression an idiotic way, a negative judgement on social esteem, to comment on the U.S.’s behaviour, and such a negative stance is taken in a monoglossic way, categorically construing the stupidity of arresting Huawei’s top executive. In the second English version, TheNew York Times also expresses a negative judgement, questioning Donald Trump’s ability to deal with China-related trade issue. Such a stance is advanced in a heteroglossic way by using an endorsement of a proclamation, through which a negative evaluation towards Trump is construed as undeniable.

In the Chinese headline, the negative-U.S. stance is retained. As the first English headline does, the Chinese version also regards the United States’ action as 愚蠢 [idiotic]. Additionally, the Chinese headline makes a condemning evaluation of the propriety of arresting Meng Wanzhou, using 对华为下手 [targeting Huawei as prey] and 错误 [wrong], which are a negative social sanction. However, such a stance is taken via the means of acknowledge, attributing the negative stance to the U.S. media and making space for the putative reader who may hold different views.

Example 3 is taken from a news report on the attempt of the United States to ban ZTE, a Chinese telecommunication technology company, from doing business with U.S. companies. With neutral judgement, the English news headline conveys a neutral stance towards the United States and the United Kingdom, and it is adopted in a monoglossic utterance.

In the Chinese transedited headline, the neutral stance is mediated into a negative one. Two evaluative items can be detected: 封杀 [forcing-out] and 使绊子 [try to trip China up]. The first is a negative judgement, which indicates that the UK and U.S.’s attempt to “force out” China violated free-trade principles. The second is also a negative judgement on social sanction that directly criticizes the U.S. and UK’s morally inappropriate banning ZTE. Global Times takes such a mediated stance by attributing it to external sources: foreign media. It aligns putative readers with the negative stance towards the United States by acknowledging that even foreign media have regarded America’s action as inappropriate, even though it might be one of the various stances of different sources.

In the English version of Example 4, the phrase could seek a China trade truce is a neutral judgement on the social esteem of the U.S. government, represented by Trump, implying that there is a possibility that a truce could be achieved so as to avoid the aggravation of the trade war. Such a stance is advanced in a heteroglossic way via the entertain device, which indicates that such a neutral stance is a range of possible value positions in Trump’s solution to China’s trade conflict.

In the Chinese version (4a), the negative-U.S. stance is instantiated by the comment “必赢不输”纯属幻想 [“sure-win and no-lose” is a sheer fantasy]. This comment shows a negative appreciation of the value of the thought held by the U.S. government, namely that they can win in the trade conflict. Reference News takes that kind of view as 纯属幻想 [a sheer fantasy]. The negative-U.S. stance is taken in a heteroglossic way by attributing such a value position to the U.S. media, implying that such a negative evaluation is but a series of possible negative attitudes held by the media in the United States.

Example 5 consists of the news headlines on the progress of the China-U.S. trade negotiation held in Washington. In the trade conflict, the U.S. compelled China to increase imports so as to reduce the U.S.-China trade deficit, but China withstood the pressure. Therefore, giving in to U.S. demands may be seen as a major failure on the part of China. In the first English version, the statement China agrees to buy more U.S. goods and services is a seemingly factual description. Nevertheless, such a headline may instantiate a subtle negative-China stance, because it conveys a negative judgement on social esteem, implying that China has conceded to the United States and agreed to import more American commodities, as the U.S. demanded. It is the same in the second English version, which also subtly advances a negative-China stance by negatively evaluating China’s ability in the negotiations. The negative stance in the first English version is taken in a monoglossic communicative setting in the form of a bare assertion, while in the second English version, such a stance is attributed to Kudlow, indicating that Bloomberg may want to remain distant from such an evaluation.

In the Chinese headline, Reference News on the one hand delicately expresses a positive-China stance by presenting China’s non-conceding attitude in the trade negotiation. On the other hand, it also holds a negative stance towards the United States by commenting that the U.S.’s demand is “unreasonable,” which is a negative judgement with social sanction, and that it considers the demand an inappropriate action. Such a stance is attributed to foreign media, creating dialogical space for putative readers to align them with this evaluation.

Example 6 is excerpted from a piece of news on the U.S. government’s sanction on ZTE. In the English version, The Wall Street Journal holds a negative stance towards such punishment, and it claims that U.S. tech firms are severely affected; they are “caught in [a] crossfire” and suffer collateral damaged. The phrase caught in [a] crossfire is a negative appreciation of the situation in which U.S. tech firms were trapped because of the trade conflict. The negative stance is presented in a monoglossic way in the form of a “pseudo” question, implying that there is no dialogical alternative to be recognised.

In the Chinese version, Global Times expresses the negative attitude towards the U.S. by describing their behaviour as 打压 [hold-down] and their reaction as 恐慌 [panic]. Moreover, a positive stance towards China is instantiated via the attitudinal item 中国科技崛起 [the rise of China’s science and technology], which is a positive judgement on China’s capability in the hi-tech domain. Such a positive stance is conveyed in a heteroglossic way by acknowledging the value position of the American media.

Example 7 illustrates how a negative-U.S. stance is mediated into a positive stance towards China via a heteroglossic to heteroglossic means. The English version indicates a negative-U.S. stance by describing the outcome of banning ZET as backfire. Such a negative judgement is advanced through a heteroglossic device: indicating that an adverse effect is but one of the possible consequences of sanctions against ZET.

In the Chinese headline, a positive-China stance is instantiated by the phrase 中国科技发展更快 [accelerate China’s science and technology], which conveys a positive judgement of China’s ability to cope with America’s sanctions. Instead of indicating a range of possibilities, the Chinese version attributes this stance to the American media while maintaining an independent position as a simple conveyer of information.

Ideology “can be taken to mean a set of ideas or a belief system” (Stevenson 2002: 228) that “shapes people’s sense of reality, provides them with a taken for granted frame for judging what is good and bad or right and wrong in that reality, and enables and constrains their thinking about what realities are possible” (Mumby and Kuhn 2019: 252). Liberalism and conservatism are the two most distinct ideological tendencies in U.S. society (Qian 2007; Zhang 2012), but no consensus has been reached on the ideological tendencies of the U.S. media. However, a survey conducted by Gallup,[3] a public polling institute, indicated that in the economic sphere, the mainstream U.S. media tend to hold a conservative position. Generally speaking, American economic conservatism supports “the free economic system” (Schneider 2009: xiii) by upholding both limited government regulation of business investment and free enterprise. One of America’s fundamental goals in the trade war is to halt the “Made in China 2025” strategy. According to the Council on Foreign Relations,[4] an American think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs, this strategy is believed to be achieved through substantial government subsidies to Chinese enterprises and forced technology transfer, which violates America’s conservative economic principles. With this perception, the mainstream media may sometimes hold a neutral stance towards the U.S. government, even if a negative attitude is the principal evaluation of the Trump administration. Example 3 is a case in point, in which the media take a neutral stance to the banning of ZTE, because this company has been receiving large subsidies from the Chinese government, something that goes against U.S. conservative economic principles.

Since Xi Jinping came into power, the Chinese Dream has become the core of China’s mainstream ideology (Hao 2014; Li 2015). The ultimate goal of such an ideology is to achieve a national rejuvenation. This goal is deeply rooted in the historical background of China’s decline and humiliation caused by foreign invasions between the late 19^th to the mid-20^th centuries. Therefore, patriotism and nationalism are re-accentuated in China’s present mainstream ideology. In the Chinese perspective, the trade war is regarded as a foreign intervention similar to what their forefathers suffered centuries ago and is termed 贸易霸凌 [trade bullying] (Yang 2018: 11). America’s trade bullying is characterized by violation of international trade rules and aims to curb China’s development (Dai, Zhang, et al. 2018). Therefore, the U.S. may be compared to the imperialist power that brought humiliation to China centuries ago. This conception may be responsible for the mediation of a neutral-U.S. stance to a negative-U.S. stance, especially the emphasis on the immorality of the trade war. The Chinese headline in Example 3, in which the banning of ZTE is depicted as an immortal activity, illustrates this case well.

The role played by the American media against the U.S. government has evolved from lapdog to watchdog, and, ultimately, to attack dog. The lapdog role played by the U.S. media is illustrated by their close cooperation with the U.S. government during the two World Wars, in which they totally and uncritically accepted the government’s policies. The watchdog role is characterized by concealing news, especially those unfavourable reports on the Vietnam War in the 1960s. However, the attack dog role implies a confrontation between U.S. media and their government, such as the Watergate scandal in the 1970s (Straubhaar and LaRose 2002). In addition, researchers (see for instance Ming 2005) have found that after the events of 9/11, the U.S. media played another role, that of sheepdog for the government, offering justifications for the Iraqi War and shaping public opinions. However, the interdependent relationship between the U.S. media and government was destroyed when Donald Trump won the presidential election and came to power in 2016. The confrontation between the Trump administration and mainstream American media has magnified the adversarial aspect of the relationship between the government and the media (Zhao 2018), re-establishing an attack dog role for the latter. This role may account for the prominent occurrence of a negative-U.S. stance in the English news headlines. Such a stance is often instantiated via a negative judgement on the social esteem of the Trump administration, criticising their incompetence in the trade conflict. Example 2 is a case in point. It should also be noted that such a stance is usually taken up monoglossically and declared in a categorically assertive way, projecting Trump’s incompetence in the trade conflict as fact.

There is a consensus that China’s state-run media are under the guidance and supervision of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese central government (Lu 1980; Li 2003; Qin 2018; among others). The Chinese headlines in the current study are collected from media sources affiliated with either the Xinhua News Agency or The People’s Daily, the two most important mouthpieces for the CPC and the Chinese central government. According to the Xinhua News Agency[5] and The People’s Daily,[6] the duty of these mouthpieces can be summarised as to “firmly grasp correct political direction and opinion orientation and loyally perform the function as ‘mouthpiece’” (our translation)[7] and to “vigosrously publicise CPC’s theories, lines, guidelines and policies, as well as CPC’s major decisions” (our translation)[8]. Therefore, instead of taking an adversary position against the government, the Chinese state-monitored media are oriented to stay in line with the stance of the CPC and the Chinese central government. Thus, in the case of reporting on a China-U.S. trade conflict, there are frequent occurrence of a negative-U.S. stance in the Chinese version, because the trade conflict is regarded as unilateralism and trade protectionism (Dai, Zhang, et al. 2018), which is vehemently opposed by the Chinese government.[9]

The mouthpiece orientation requires Chinese state-monitored media to establish a positive national image of China (He 2009). This may contribute to the prominent use of heteroglossic devices in the Chinese news headline. As we have discovered in the above sections, acknowledge is the most commonly used engagement measure in the Chinese headlines. Via such devices, the Chinese media appear to remain distant from the value position conveyed in the headline and seem to act as impartial messengers who are simply conveying the views of the U.S. media. In other words, by using heteroglossic devices, the Chinese media want to show that any positive assessment of China’s role in the trade conflict is not self-claimed, but has been acknowledged even by their U.S. counterparts. By doing so, the Chinese media constructs a narrative in which Trump triggering the trade war was opposed not just by China, but also by the U.S. people. As such, China is portrayed as the righteous side in the conflict, because it supposedly stands in line with both the Chinese and American people for the greater good.

The attack dog role played by mainstream American media does not necessarily mean that China, the opponent in Trump’s trade war, is described in a positive light. In the above sections, there are occurrences of a negative-China stance held by the American media. Such a stance may echo the so-called “China collapse” theory which has long existed in American society. This theory was proposed in the early 1990s and has become more prominent in recent years as China’s economic growth slowed. For instance, writing for The Wall Street Journal, Shambaugh (2015)[10] claims that CPC’s rule in China will soon end. Such pessimistic predictions have also spread to the economic realm. For example, writing for Brookings, Kroeber (2016)[11] asserts that China’s economy is greatly troubled. This “China collapse” theory may account for some of these occurrences of a negative-China stance in the U.S. media and a negative attitude towards China in news headlines. The English headlines in Example 5 are a typical case. One of the demands of the U.S. government in the trade conflict is to reduce China’s trade surplus. By reporting that China agreed to U.S. terms and would buy more American goods, the media may imply that the Chinese government lost ground in the trade conflict, thus echoing the “China collapse” perception of American society.

In recent years, especially since Xi Jinping came to power, the perception of “a new era” has prevailed in China. China’s “new era” means that “the Chinese nation, which suffered a lot in early modern times, has ushered in a great historic leap, grown rich and become strong”[12] (Bao 2018: 20; our translation). In contrast to the “China collapse” expectation of the West, in Chinese society, China is depicted as a country whose overall strength is equal to that of the U.S. It is widely believed that the trade war triggered by Trump has failed and that it will otherwise accelerate China’s development. This is illustrated by Examples 6 and 7, in which a negative-U.S. stance is changed into a positive-China stance, foregrounding China’s competitive nature in the realm of science and technology and the adverse effect of Trump’s hostile action towards China.