Cover not available

Article published In: Interpreting
Vol. 25:1 (2023) ► pp.1–26

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Interpreter ideology

‘Editing’ discourse in simultaneous interpreting

 | Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications
 | University of Leeds
Published online: 5 August 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00084.gao
Abstract
This study investigates empirically the way in which interpreter ideology is manifested in the evaluative language of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in China in 2016 (English–Chinese language pair). Methodologically, van Dijk’s Ideological Square and Martin and White’s Appraisal framework have been operationalised for the analysis of positive or negative evaluative language in ‘us’ vs ‘them’ discourses. The results reveal an overall positive-‘us’ and negative-‘them’ pattern in the interpreter’s ideological positioning. This is manifested in three ways: (i) negative, pejorative, and sensitive discourses about China are self-censored; (ii) positivity is accentuated and negativity is neutralised in China-related discourses, and (iii) negative tones in the discourses of other countries are amplified. The speaker discourse is ‘edited’ when interpreter ideology is at work during the simultaneous interpreting process. However, the linguistic patterns can provide only partial indications of the possible relationship between interpreter ideology and cognitive operations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Ideology and interpreter ideology
  • 3.Appraisal framework
  • 4.Data background and corpus
    • 4.1Locus of ideological contestation: The World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in China
    • 4.2Corpus data
  • 5.Quantitative analysis
    • 5.1Lexical shifts
    • 5.2Sentence omissions concentrated on pejorative, sensitive discourses about China
  • 6.Qualitative analysis
    • 6.1Self-censored negative-‘us’ discourses through omissions
    • 6.2Accentuated positive-‘us’ and negative-‘them’ representations through additions or substitutions
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Augoustinos, M., Walker, I. & Donaghue, N. (2014). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaton, M. (2007). Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament. The Translator 13 (2), 271–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beaton-Thome, M. (2010). Negotiating identities in the European Parliament: The role of simultaneous interpreting. In M. Baker, M. Olohan & M. Calzada Pérez (Eds.), Text and context: Essays on translation and interpreting in honour of Ian Mason. Manchester: St Jerome, 117–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catford, J. (2000/1965). Translation shifts. In L. Venuti & M. Baker (Eds.), The translation studies reader. London: Routledge, 141–147.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, B. & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20 (1), 43–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gao, F. (2020a). Interpreters’ ideological positioning through the evaluative language in conference interpreting. PhD dissertation, University of Leeds.
(2020b). From linguistic manipulation to discourse reconstruction: A case study of conference interpreting at the World Economic Forum in China. In B. Wang, & J. Munday (Eds.), Advances in discourse analysis of translation and interpreting: Linking linguistic approaches with socio-cultural interpretation. London: Routledge, 24–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Making sense of nationalism manifested in interpreted texts at ‘Summer Davos’ in China. Critical Discourse Studies 18 (6), 688–704. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Nationalistic voices from Chinese elites at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in China. Discourse & Communication. Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garsten, C. & Sörbom, A. (2016). Magical formulae for market futures: Tales from the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos. Anthropology Today 32 (6), 18–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gile, D. (1999). Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting: A contribution. Hermes 231, 153–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The contributions of cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics to conference interpreting. In A. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 41–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Editorial. CIRIN Bulletin 581, 1–3. [URL]
Gu, C. (2018). Mediating ‘face’ in triadic political communication: A CDA analysis of press conference interpreters’ discursive (re)construction of Chinese government’s image (1998–2017). Critical Discourse Studies 16 (2), 201–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gu, C. & Tipton, R. (2020). (Re-)voicing Beijing’s discourse through self-referentiality: A corpus-based CDA analysis of government interpreters’ discursive mediation at China’s political press conferences (1998–2017). Perspectives 28 (3), 406–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Towards a theory of good translation. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 13–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hibbing, J., Smith, K. & Alford, J. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (3), 297–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holtgraves, T. M. & Kashima, Y. (2008). Language, meaning, and social cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12 (1), 73–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000). (Eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jost, J. & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion 36 (1), 55–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 296–336.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mason, I. (1999). Dialogue interpreting: A selective bibliography of research. The Translator 5 (2), 381–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munday, J. (2007). Translation and ideology. The Translator 13 (2), 195–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). A model of appraisal: Spanish interpretations of President Trump’s inaugural address 2017. Perspectives 26 (2), 180–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munday, J., Ramos Pinto, S. & Blakesley, J. (2022). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (5th ed.). London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muñoz, E., Calvo, N. & García, A. M. (2019). Grounding translation and interpreting in the brain: What has been, can be, and must be done. Perspectives 27 (4), 483–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peng, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, R., Chen, Y., Tan, Y. & Yang, X. (2015). Handbook for analysing Chinese and English Appraisal meanings. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, F. (2005). From operation to action: Process orientation in interpreting studies. Meta 50 (2), 682–695. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shlesinger, M. (1999). Strategies and constraints: How do we tell them apart? In A. A. Lugrís & A. F. Ocampo (Eds.), Anovar/Anosar estudios de traducción e interpretación. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo, 65–77.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Streimikiene, D. (2012). World Economic Forum 2012. Intelektine Ekonomika 6 (1), 806–810.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tymoczko, M. (2003). Ideology and the position of the translator. In M. Calzada-Pérez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology: Translation studies on ideology – ideologies in translation studies. London: Routledge, 182–201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Censorship and self–censorship in translation: Ethics and ideology, resistance and collusion. In N. C. Eiléan, C. ÓCuilleanáin & D. Parris (Eds.), Translation and censorship: Patterns of communication and interference. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 24–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Translation, resistance, activism: An overview. In M. Tymoczko (Ed.), Translation, resistance, activism. Amherst/Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 1–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1990). Social cognition and discourse. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 163–183.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies 11 (2), 115–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Ideology. In G. Mazzoleni, K. Barnhurst, K. I. Ikeda, R. Maia & H. Wessler (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of political communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 495–506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Voloshinov, V. (1929/1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Translated by L. Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, B. & Feng, D. (2017). A corpus-based study of stance-taking as seen from critical points in interpreted political discourse. Perspectives 26 (2), 246–260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zamboni, G., Gozzi, M., Krueger, F., Duhamel, J., Sirigu, A. & Grafman, J. (2009). Individualism, conservatism, and radicalism as criteria for processing political beliefs: A parametric fMRI study. Social Neuroscience 4 (5), 367–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, C. (2015). Simultaneous conference interpreting and a supernorm that governs it all. Meta 60 (1), 90–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Zhang, Wenkang, Yao Yao, Rui Xie & Dechao Li
2025. Can artificial intelligence mirror the human’s emotions? A comparative sentiment analysis of human and machine interpreting in press conferences. Behaviour & Information Technology ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gao, Fei & Binhua Wang
2024. Reconstructing solidarity discourse through conference interpreting at the general debates of the United Nations (2008–2021). The Translator 30:4 ► pp. 553 ff. DOI logo
Gao, Fei & Binhua Wang
2025. Conference interpreting as a ‘variational node’ in intercultural communication: a case study of Belt-and-Road discourse at/beyond the Summer Davos Forum. Language and Intercultural Communication ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Phanthaphoommee, Narongdej & Jeremy Munday
2024. Pronoun shifts in political discourse. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation / Revista Internacional de Traducción 70:6 ► pp. 825 ff. DOI logo
Pöchhacker, Franz
2024. Conference Interpreting. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
张, 瑞雪
2024. Review of Translation Studies form the Perspective of Appraisal Theory (from 2005 to 2023). Modern Linguistics 12:10 ► pp. 605 ff. DOI logo
Gu, Chonglong & J E. Trinidad Segovia
2023. ‘Climate change concerns human survival…and justice in our international community’: A corpus-based positive discourse analysis (PDA) of the largest developing nation’s global involve/engagement discourses (re)told in interpreting. PLOS ONE 18:4 ► pp. e0277705 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Binhua & Chonglong Gu
2023. Editorial: Translation and interpreting as communication: necessity and significance of studies about translated and interpreted communication. Frontiers in Communication 8 DOI logo
Xu, Jun & Yuxiao Liang
2023. Negotiating intersubjectivity by interpersonal and appraisal shifts in Chinese-English government press conference interpreting. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue