Dialogue interpreters are expected to work in a neutral and impartial way. However, studies of authentic interpreted encounters seem to show that interpreters do not always relate to the participants, or to the information relayed, in a neutral and impartial way. This assumption is based on the analysis of shifts observed in the use of direct speech (first person pronoun) or indirect speech (third person pronoun) and on the study of changes in the use of pronouns employed to address the interlocutors. In this paper the use of both elements by dialogue interpreters is analyzed in two type of data: dialogue interpreting examinations and a role-played dialogue representing a medical encounter. An argument is put forward that shifts in the use of direct or indirect speech, and in the pronouns employed to address the other participants, seem to reveal that interpreters play different roles in an encounter.