Cover not available
Article published In:
Interpreting
Vol. 25:1 (2023) ► pp.1–26

Interpreter ideology

‘Editing’ discourse in simultaneous interpreting

| Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications
| University of Leeds

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.

Keywords: conference interpreting, ideology, discourse, cognitive operations, evaluative language, simultaneous interpreting, Appraisal framework
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
Published online: 5 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00084.gao
References
Augoustinos, M., Walker, I. & Donaghue, N.
(2014) Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Baker, P.
(2010) Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Beaton, M.
(2007) Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament. The Translator 13 (2), 271–296. DOI logoGoogle 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
Bednarek, M.
(2006) Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Brezina, V.
(2018) Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, J.
(2000/1965) Translation shifts. In L. Venuti & M. Baker (Eds.), The translation studies reader. London: Routledge, 141–147.Google Scholar
Davies, B. & Harré, R.
(1990) Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20 (1), 43–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fu, R. & Chen, J.
(2019) Negotiating interpersonal relations in Chinese–English diplomatic interpreting. Interpreting 21 (1), 12–35. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Making sense of nationalism manifested in interpreted texts at ‘Summer Davos’ in China. Critical Discourse Studies 18 (6), 688–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022) Nationalistic voices from Chinese elites at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in China. Discourse & Communication. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, D.
(1999) Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting: A contribution. Hermes 23 1, 153–172.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
(1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, B. & Mason, I.
(1997) The translator as communicator. London/New York: Routledge.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holtgraves, T. M. & Kashima, Y.
(2008) Language, meaning, and social cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Review 12 (1), 73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. & Thompson, G.
(2000) (Eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jost, J. & Amodio, D.
(2012) Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion 36 (1), 55–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liao, S. & Pan, L.
(2018) Interpreter mediation at political press conferences. Interpreting 20 (2), 188–203. DOI logoGoogle 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
Martin, J. & White, P. R.
(2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mason, I.
(1999) Dialogue interpreting: A selective bibliography of research. The Translator 5 (2), 381–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, J.
(2007) Translation and ideology. The Translator 13 (2), 195–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) A model of appraisal: Spanish interpretations of President Trump’s inaugural address 2017. Perspectives 26 (2), 180–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munday, J., Ramos Pinto, S. & Blakesley, J.
(2022) Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (5th ed.). London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Pöchhacker, F.
(2005) From operation to action: Process orientation in interpreting studies. Meta 50 (2), 682–695. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setton, R.
(1999) Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Words and sense: Revisiting lexical processes in interpreting, Forum 1 (1), 139–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, C.
(2004) Political discourse analysis from the point of view of translation studies. Journal of Language and Politics 3 (1), 117–150. DOI logoGoogle 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
Streimikiene, D.
(2012) World Economic Forum 2012. Intelektine Ekonomika 6 (1), 806–810.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
(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
(2010) Translation, resistance, activism: An overview. In M. Tymoczko (Ed.), Translation, resistance, activism. Amherst/Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 1–22.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
(1998) Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
(2006) Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies 11 (2), 115–140. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, E.
(1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwischenberger, C.
(2015) Simultaneous conference interpreting and a supernorm that governs it all. Meta 60 (1), 90–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar