1887
image of Interpreter ideology
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00084.gao
2022-08-05
2022-08-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Apostolou, F.
    (2009) Mediation, manipulation, empowerment: Celebrating the complexity of the interpreter’s role. Interpreting11 (1), 1–19. 10.1075/intp.11.1.02apo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.02apo [Google Scholar]
  2. Augoustinos, M., Walker, I. & Donaghue, N.
    (2014) Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, P.
    (2010) Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaton, M.
    (2007) Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament. The Translator13 (2), 271–296. 10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaton-Thome, M.
    (2010) Negotiating identities in the European Parliament: The role of simultaneous interpreting. InM. 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]
  6. Bednarek, M.
    (2006) Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Brezina, V.
    (2018) Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316410899
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899 [Google Scholar]
  8. Catford, J.
    (2000/1965) Translation shifts. InL. Venuti & M. Baker (Eds.), The translation studies reader. London: Routledge, 141–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Davies, B. & Harré, R.
    (1990) Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour20 (1), 43–63. 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1990.tb00174.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Diriker, E.
    (2004) De-/Re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.53 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fu, R. & Chen, J.
    (2019) Negotiating interpersonal relations in Chinese–English diplomatic interpreting. Interpreting21 (1), 12–35. 10.1075/intp.00018.fu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00018.fu [Google Scholar]
  12. Gao, F.
    (2020a) Interpreters’ ideological positioning through the evaluative language in conference interpreting. PhD dissertation, University of Leeds.
  13. (2020b) From linguistic manipulation to discourse reconstruction: A case study of conference interpreting at the World Economic Forum in China. InB. Wang, & J. Munday (Eds.), Advances in discourse analysis of translation and interpreting: Linking linguistic approaches with socio-cultural interpretation. London: Routledge, 24–39. 10.4324/9780367822446‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367822446-4 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2021) Making sense of nationalism manifested in interpreted texts at ‘Summer Davos’ in China. Critical Discourse Studies18 (6), 688–704. 10.1080/17405904.2020.1834420
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1834420 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2022) Nationalistic voices from Chinese elites at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in China. Discourse & Communication. Advance online publication. 10.1177/17504813211070672
    https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211070672 [Google Scholar]
  16. Garsten, C. & Sörbom, A.
    (2016) Magical formulae for market futures: Tales from the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos. Anthropology Today32 (6), 18–21. 10.1111/1467‑8322.12312
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12312 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gile, D.
    (1999) Testing the Effort Models’ tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting: A contribution. Hermes23, 153–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015) The contributions of cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics to conference interpreting. InA. Ferreira & J. W. Schwieter (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and cognitive inquiries into translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 41–66. 10.1075/btl.115.03gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.03gil [Google Scholar]
  19. (2019) Editorial. CIRIN Bulletin58, 1–3. https://www.cirinandgile.com/bulletins/Bulletin-58-Jul-2019.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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 Studies16 (2), 201–221. 10.1080/17405904.2018.1538890
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1538890 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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). Perspectives28 (3), 406–423. 10.1080/0907676X.2020.1717558
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2020.1717558 [Google Scholar]
  22. Guo, Y.
    (2018) Effects of the interpreter’s political awareness on pronoun shifts in political interviews: A perspective of interpersonal meaning. Babel64 (4), 528–547. 10.1075/babel.00053.guo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00053.guo [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1994) An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2001) Towards a theory of good translation. InE. Steiner & C. Yallop (Eds.), Exploring translation and multilingual text production: Beyond content. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 13–18. 10.1515/9783110866193.13
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866193.13 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hatim, B. & Mason, I.
    (1997) The translator as communicator. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hibbing, J., Smith, K. & Alford, J.
    (2014) Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences37 (3), 297–307. 10.1017/S0140525X13001192
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13001192 [Google Scholar]
  27. Holtgraves, T. M. & Kashima, Y.
    (2008) Language, meaning, and social cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Review12 (1), 73–94. 10.1177/1088868307309605
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307309605 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hunston, S. & Thompson, G.
    (2000) (Eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Jost, J. & Amodio, D.
    (2012) Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion36 (1), 55–64. 10.1007/s11031‑011‑9260‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7 [Google Scholar]
  30. Liao, S. & Pan, L.
    (2018) Interpreter mediation at political press conferences. Interpreting20 (2), 188–203. 10.1075/intp.00009.lia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00009.lia [Google Scholar]
  31. Malinowski, B.
    (1923) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. InC. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 296–336.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Martin, J. & White, P. R.
    (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mason, I.
    (1999) Dialogue interpreting: A selective bibliography of research. The Translator5 (2), 381–385. 10.1080/13556509.1999.10799052
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1999.10799052 [Google Scholar]
  34. Munday, J.
    (2007) Translation and ideology. The Translator13 (2), 195–217. 10.1080/13556509.2007.10799238
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2007.10799238 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2012) Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-making. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203117743
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203117743 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2018) A model of appraisal: Spanish interpretations of President Trump’s inaugural address 2017. Perspectives26 (2), 180–195. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1388415
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1388415 [Google Scholar]
  37. Munday, J., Ramos Pinto, S. & Blakesley, J.
    (2022) Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications (5th ed.). London/New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429352461
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429352461 [Google Scholar]
  38. Muñoz, E., Calvo, N. & García, A. M.
    (2019) Grounding translation and interpreting in the brain: What has been, can be, and must be done. Perspectives27 (4), 483–509. 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1549575
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1549575 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Pöchhacker, F.
    (2005) From operation to action: Process orientation in interpreting studies. Meta50 (2), 682–695. 10.7202/011011ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/011011ar [Google Scholar]
  41. Setton, R.
    (1999) Simultaneous interpretation: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.28 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2003) Words and sense: Revisiting lexical processes in interpreting, Forum1 (1), 139–168. 10.1075/forum.1.1.08set
    https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.1.1.08set [Google Scholar]
  43. Schäffner, C.
    (2004) Political discourse analysis from the point of view of translation studies. Journal of Language and Politics3 (1), 117–150. 10.1075/jlp.3.1.09sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.09sch [Google Scholar]
  44. Shlesinger, M.
    (1999) Strategies and constraints: How do we tell them apart?InA. A. Lugrís & A. F. Ocampo (Eds.), Anovar/Anosar estudios de traducción e interpretación. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo, 65–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Streimikiene, D.
    (2012) World Economic Forum 2012. Intelektine Ekonomika6 (1), 806–810.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tymoczko, M.
    (2003) Ideology and the position of the translator. InM. Calzada-Pérez (Ed.), Apropos of ideology: Translation studies on ideology – ideologies in translation studies. London: Routledge, 182–201.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2009) Censorship and self–censorship in translation: Ethics and ideology, resistance and collusion. InN. C. Eiléan, C. ÓCuilleanáin & D. Parris (Eds.), Translation and censorship: Patterns of communication and interference. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 24–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (2010) Translation, resistance, activism: An overview. InM. Tymoczko (Ed.), Translation, resistance, activism. Amherst/Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. van Dijk, T. A.
    (1990) Social cognition and discourse. InW. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology. Chichester: Wiley, 163–183.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (1998) Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2006) Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies11 (2), 115–140. 10.1080/13569310600687908
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2016) Ideology. InG. Mazzoleni, K. Barnhurst, K. I. Ikeda, R. Maia & H. Wessler (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of political communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 495–506. 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc011
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc011 [Google Scholar]
  53. Voloshinov, V.
    (1929/1973) Marxism and the philosophy of language. Translated byL. Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, B. & Feng, D.
    (2017) A corpus-based study of stance-taking as seen from critical points in interpreted political discourse. Perspectives26 (2), 246–260. 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1395468
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2017.1395468 [Google Scholar]
  55. Wenger, E.
    (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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 Neuroscience4 (5), 367–383. 10.1080/17470910902860308
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910902860308 [Google Scholar]
  57. Zwischenberger, C.
    (2015) Simultaneous conference interpreting and a supernorm that governs it all. Meta60 (1), 90–111. 10.7202/1032401ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/1032401ar [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00084.gao
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/intp.00084.gao
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error