







































Education, Language and Sociology Research 
ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

Original Paper 

Identity Construction of Government Staff Interpreters in China 

—A Corpus-based Study of Shifts in Political Interpreting 
Cheng Zhan1* 

1 School of Foreign Languages, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, P. R. China 
* Cheng Zhan, School of Foreign Languages, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, P. R. China 

 

Received: September 28, 2020   Accepted: October 11, 2020   Online Published: October 18, 2020 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v1n2p77         URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v1n2p77 

 

Abstract 

This paper presents the findings of a corpus-based empirical study on the role of government staff 

interpreters in the political context of China. Based on a qualitative analysis of discourse documented 

in authentic encounters between top leaders of Guangdong Province and their foreign visitors in 

interpreter-facilitated communication, the paper attempts to question the long-held view that 

government staff interpreters serve as a neutral, transparent non-person. To provide perhaps a new 

perspective from which the interpreter’s role may be revisited, this paper looks at personal angle shifts 

in the interpretation done by six staff interpreters of Guangdong Foreign Affairs Office, including shifts 

between first person and third person angles, and second person and third person angles. With what 

corpus data reveal, the paper argues that the interpreter’s role as a mediator is conspicuous even in 

high-level political interpreting. Rather than a transparent non-person, the interpreter constructs and 

represents her identity as well as the identity of the institution she belongs to by discursive means, and 

therefore acts as an active party of communication. 

Keywords 

role, staff interpreters, political setting, personal angle, shifts 

 

1. Introduction 

Interpreting is a socially-situated process of communicative interaction in a given context, in which the 

interpreter acts as an individual participant with embodied agency in the exchanges of discourse. 

Understanding the role of the interpreter both as a constructed and constructing subject in the society 

can therefore shed some light on the social function of interpreting. Previous research on the role of 

interpreters has been conducted mostly in the area of community interpreting, where interpreters are 

77 
 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

not only directly involved in the communicative process, but are also drawn into decision-making in 

cases of unequal power relations and diverging interests.  

In terms of the role of the interpreter, a much-ignored area has been interpreting done in political 

settings. More than a decade ago, Baker (1997, p. 124) argues that “‘political’ interpreting as a genre 

deserves to be studied more closely in view of its importance in shaping cultural images and aiding or 

obstructing the cause of world peace”, and that it is, with its many non-cognitive constraints, at least a 

distinct area of study in the domain of interpreting studies. However, mostly due to lack of access to 

authentic data and the sensitiveness of political interpreting itself, considerably less input has been 

made into this area by researchers worldwide. 

This paper looks at a particular field of interpreting—the People’s Government of Guangdong Province, 

and analyzes the role government staff interpreters play in interpreting. The paper departs from 

defining “political setting” as a general working environment of official dialogue interpreting in which 

important government officials are involved, and the topics of discussion are mostly issues of politics, 

economy and international relations, and focuses on one aspect of the role performance of the 

interpreters—how they distinguish between “us” and the “other”, and construct the self as well as 

institutional identity in the process of interpreting. With quantitative data from a corpus of 25 political 

meetings conducted in Guangdong Province, and qualitative analysis of the interpreters’ renditions, the 

paper will revisit the role of government staff interpreters in the political context of China as an active 

mediator of discourse. 

 

2. Questioning the Interpreter’s Role as a Non-person 

Settings as the “social context of interaction” (Pöchhacker, 2004, p. 13) not only constitute the social 

context of professional interpreting, but also place certain constraints on how interpreting is done. In 

previous studies of the role of interpreters in various community settings, as researchers got to accept 

the idea that interpreting is far from an objectivistic transformation of utterances, they shifted to a 

discursive approach to interpreting as a socio-culturally-driven interactive activity. In the many works 

that have been produced since the turn of the century (e.g., Wadensjö, 1998; Metzger, 1999; Roy, 2000; 

Angelelli, 2001, 2004a, 2004b; Ren, 2010), the relations between the parties of communication in the 

process of community interpreting has been explored and discussed. The view that community 

interpreters serve as a “non-person” or a “conduit” has already been challenged by researchers using 

authentic ethnographic data. 

The activity of interpreting in political settings, when in the form of conversational events, involves a 

process in which ideologies from the interacting participants get negotiated in the given social field 

then and there. Nor is it free from ideological factors which form the meta-narratives of the 

interpreter-facilitated political encounters. The role of the interpreter in such a process can therefore be 

thrown into question, as how the interpreter’s identity is constructed and represented should be an issue 

78 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

under serious investigation. To quote Inghilleri (2003, p. 261), interpreters are “forever trapped inside 

their socially constituted selves”. 

Inghilleri is right in pointing out that interpreter’s identity construction is a complex and even 

conflicting process. The social and cultural conditions of interpreting shape interpreters’ behaviour and 

constitute them to become the subjects for the “self” and the “other”. Barker and Galasinski (2001, p. 

28) suggest that “identities are discursive-performative in the sense that they are best described as 

constructed through discursive practice which enacts or produces that which it names though citation 

and reiteration of norms or conventions”. The “self” is a given content, and is embodied, construed not 

perhaps unlike a character we encounter in a novel or a play, in that he/she is always expected to 

perform a certain role. The construction, development and representation of the self in any narrative 

performance should be considered the most characteristically human acts that justifiably remain of 

central importance to both our personal and our communal existence. What takes to be a person is 

culturally-constructed and therefore is variable. Such must also be the case for interpreters in political 

encounters. The simple truth therefore is, if the interpreter can be observed to have ways of 

representing himself or herself and actually does so, he/she is no longer a neutral and transparent 

“non-person”, as is normally believed to be the situation for the politically-conditioned dialogue 

interpreting.  

 

3. Revisiting Interpreter’s Role from Personal Angle Shifts—What Corpus Data Suggest 

For this research project, I shall look at staff interpreters working for the Protocol Department of the 

Foreign Affairs Office (FAO) of the People’s Government of Guangdong Province. In the Chinese 

political system, governments from the central to the local levels employ staff interpreters for language 

service in international relations. The dual role of these civil servant interpreters as both a professional 

service provider and a government functionary certainly makes their role performance an interesting 

topic to explore.  

For this research project, I have collected a total of 25 meetings, held in a five-year span between 2005 

to 2009 between a senior official of the People’s Government of Guangdong Province and a foreign 

counterpart or several members of a high official delegation. The length of each meeting ranges from 

40 minutes to 100 minutes, making the total length of audio data 40 or so hours. Consecutive 

interpreting is used in all these meetings. Six interpreters of the Guangdong FAO with professional 

working experience of 6 to 13 years interpreted for these meetings. All of them happened to be female 

interpreters. 

In analyzing the corpus data, I have identified one specific aspect of the interpreter’s identity 

construction and representation—the shifts in their personal angles in interpreting. Davies and Harré 

(2001, p. 263) suggest that the processes of acquisition and development of personal sense,  

... arise in relations to a theory of the self embodied in pronoun grammar in which a person 

understands themselves as historically continuous and unitary. The experiencing of contradictory 
79 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

positions as problematic, as something to be reconciled or remedied, stems from this general 

feature of the way being a person is done in our society. (my emphasis) 

Informed by the “pronoun grammar” discussed by Davies and Harré, I shall analyze, but not limit 

myself to, the pronoun usage in the interpreted utterances of the interpreter. To incorporate a greater 

variety of observed phenomena into my analysis, I shall adopt the term “personal angles”, an analogy 

to the terminology “camera angles” in photography for the investigation of such shifts in the corpus 

data. The “personal angle” relates to the “camera angle” from which a scene is presented, which 

Sanders (1994) calls “vantage point”. It involves time, place and person indicators. As far as “person” 

is concerned, it defines the “I”, “you” and “he/she” about which the interlocutors are speaking. During 

the interaction, the vantage point may change, meaning that the “I”, the “you” and “he/she” do not have 

to refer to the same persons throughout a verbal exchange or throughout a text. In interpreter-mediated 

oral encounter, the indicator of person thus refers directly to the issue of “who is talking” and to the 

different attitudes towards the re-narration by the interpreter.  

Setting out from the use of personal angles therefore will offer us interesting evidence of how the 

interpreter justifies his/her being as a participant of the interpreted communication. In the political 

meetings that I investigate for this research project, this kind of shift between identities is two-fold. For 

one, the interpreter moves between representing the speakers and representing herself; for the other, the 

interpreter moves between narrating for the provincial leader, or “us” and narrating for the foreign 

statesman or business leader, or the “other”. Such constant shifts in identities, when occurring 

frequently in the linguistic activities taken, may become a problem for the interpreter.  

The total number of valid turns rendered by the interpreters into the target language (either English or 

Chinese) in all the 25 meetings studied amounts to 2296, out of which there are 297 observed shifts in 

personal angles, which sets the shift rate at 12.94%. 

In Figure 1, the horizontal axis corresponds to the 6 interpreters coded A to F, while the vertical axis 

corresponds to the number of shifts in personal angles out of the total valid turns the interpreter 

reproduces. From interpreter A to interpreter F, the personal angle shift rates as calculated against each 

interpreter’s total valid turns are 10.09%, 17.33%, 11.49%, 14.55%, 9.54% and 10.37% respectively. 

 

 

80 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

 

Figure 1. Each Interpreter’s Shifts in Personal Angles out of Her Total Valid Turns 

 

4. Personal Angle Shifts as Means of Identity Construction 

A qualitative study of the shifts in personal angles show that shifts occur in a certain pattern, which can 

be categorized into the following two types: 

(1) The speaker uses a first person pronoun or concept, either singular or plural,  

in the sentence, and the interpreter renders it into a third person pronoun or concept, either 

singular or plural, animate or non-animate, or the other way round (third person into first person 

pronoun or concept); 

(2) The speaker uses a second person pronoun or concept, either singular or  

plural, in the sentence, and the interpreter renders it into a third person pronoun or concept, either 

singular or plural, animate or non-animate, or the other way round (third person into second 

person pronoun or concept). 

4.1 First Person vs. Third Person as the Constructing of “Us” 

In the corpus data of the 25 meetings, a number of shifts of personal angles between the first person 

and the third person can be observed, clearly indicating the way the interpreter understands what is 

means to be “us”, and the decision she makes in shifting between different ways of signifying the 

concept of “us” so as to realize the construction and assertion of the identities of the imagined 

community. 

4.1.1 First Person Angle to Third Person Angle 

I shall start with some typical corpus data that show how the interpreter shifts from the first person 

pronoun in the start text (ST), a personal angle clearly an indication of “us”, to the personal angle that 

is third person in the target text (TT).  

Case 1: 

ST: 因为我们有五千多年的华夏的文明历史。 

(For the reason that we have a Chinese civilization and history of more than five thousand years.) 

TT: China is the country with a history of five thousand years. 

81 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

In this case, the speaker talks about the five thousand years of history of “us”, but does not suggest 

what he means by “us”. The interpreter thus has to make a judgment of who is “我们” (we). In the 

target text, “我们” is rendered into “China”. The not only does the interpreter make use of the existing 

narratives of China’s history, but also equates China to “us”. 

Case 2: 

ST: 为了解决这些问题，我想你一定注意到了，我们提出了一个，新的理念，或者叫重要

的战略思想，就是科学发展观。 

(You must have noticed that to solve these problems, we have proposed a new idea, or a new 

important strategic thinking, the scientific outlook on development.) 

TT: To meet these challenges, the CPC has proposed a new, um, idea of development, which 

maybe you have already known. That is the scientific outlook on development. 

In this case, the speaker talks about a new strategic thinking “the Scientific Outlook on Development” 

proposed by “us”. Here the boundary of “us” is very fuzzy, as it can be the leaders of the province, the 

province itself, or China. The interpreter in this case renders “我们” into “the CPC”, which is a clear 

indication of mediation on the part of the interpreter. It reflects the belief system of the interpreter that 

the Communist Party of China is the ruling party of the country and is responsible for the orientation of 

development for it. Though this rendition is certainly not erroneous, it nevertheless is a sign of the 

interpreter’s voice on the party system as well as the political structure of the country.  

4.1.2 Third Person Angle to First Person Angle 

In this part, I shall move on to typical corpus data that show how the interpreter shifts from the third 

person subjects to the first personal pronoun, thus showing the territory of “us” in her outlook.  

Case 1:  

ST: 也非常想了解呀，呃，在最近啊，中挪两国，以及挪威广东的环境保护，经济文化交

流各方面的合作能够有什么作为。 

(We would also like to know what can be done in the near future in all sectors including 

environmental protection, economic and cultural exchanges between the two countries of China 

and Norway, and Norway and Guangdong.) 

TT: And we would also like to cover our cooperation not only in the environmental protection, 

but also in trade, culture and other sectors.  

In this case, both “中挪两国” (the two countries of China and Norway) and “挪威广东” (Norway and 

Guangdong) are rendered into first person plural, as the nominative case and the possessive case 

respectively. Despite the difference in the scope of the subjects, both China and Guangdong are 

considered to be the territory of “us”. 

Case 2:  

ST: 从现在产业体系的建立到自主创新能力的提高等一系列的方面，为广东，尤其是珠三

角地区的科学发展描绘出了一个路线图。 

82 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

(In a number of areas such as industrial structuring and indigenous innovation improvement, this 

has painted a roadmap for the scientific development of Guangdong, the Pearl River Delta in 

particular.) 

TT: It have given us a blueprint or a land roadmap to the construct modern industries in China 

and to encourage innovations of our enterprises.   

The speaker first mentions Guangdong, and then adds more information by saying “尤其是珠三角地

区” (particularly the Pearl River Delta area). However, neither Guangdong nor the PRD is visible in the 

target utterance. The two terms are simplified into one objective case of the first-person pronoun. To 

the interpreter, these two geographic concepts are both territories of “us”, and therefore do not seem to 

have major differences in the representation of the meaning. 

These clearly show the understanding and image constructing the interpreters apply to the world around 

them. By shifting among different scopes of territory, the interpreter show what is meant by the words 

“us” and “I” that proliferate in the discourse. It is in the linguistic paradigm that the interpreters 

construct and represent the identities for the speaker as well as for themselves. “us” is therefore a 

product of language, as the implied subject of self-referring utterances. 

4.2 Second Person vs. Third Person as the Constructing of the “Other” 

In his paper examining address forms and ambiguous participant roles in court interpreting, 

Angermeyer (2005) reviews the hierarchy of “audience roles” proposed by Bell, which primarily 

distinguishes between second person address and third person un-addressed. Bell’s model suggests that 

speakers style-shift to accommodate to the speech styles of their audience, and they tend to adapt more 

to the addressee and less to an unaddressed ratified participant or to an overhearer. Bell then notes with 

the model that speakers may also accommodate to referees, persons who are not present at the 

interaction at all, but who possess “such salience for a speaker that they influence speech even in their 

absence”. (Bell in Angermeyer, 2005, p. 207) 

Angermeyer’s review of Bell’s model suggests that in the triadic exchanges of discourse in a political 

meeting, the interpreter not only addresses the party on-site (second person) to which the speaker (first 

person) sends messages, but also bears in mind and is influenced by an invisible party (the third person) 

which is closely related to the speaker and the party addressed. The third party, I would suggest, is an 

embodiment of the cultural construct of the identity that can be interpreted in relation to the speaker or 

the party addressed. In other words, the “the third party” is a representation of the “other” which is to 

be understood as against “us”. Therefore, the interpreter’s shifts of personal subjects between the 

second and the third person signifies the interpreter’s knowledge of the sociocultural construct of the 

“other”. 

4.2.1 Second Person Angle to Third Person Angle 

In the following cases, I shall examine the ways the interpreter renders the second person pronoun 

“you”, singular or plural, into a third person subject, and provide possible explanation of such 

renditions.  
83 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

Case 1:  

ST: 你们在宏观经济管理，发展高新技术和教育等方面有很多值得我们学习和借鉴的地方。 

(You have a lot for us to learn and borrow in areas such as macroeconomic management, 

high-tech development, and education.) 

TT: There are a lot we can learn from Finland, in area of macro-control of economy and higher 

education and high-technology development. 

In this instance, the speaker, Governor of Guangdong Province, addresses the foreign visitor, who 

happens to be the Prime Minister of Finland, using the plural form of second person pronoun. The 

interpreter renders “你们” in the original into “Finland”, which is the country that the addressee 

represents, and in Bell’s term, the invisible third party of the interpreted communication. A probable 

explanation to this is that the interpreter does this to avoid the ambiguity of the address form (as “you” 

can mean the Prime Minister himself, the delegation of the official visit or the people of Finland). But 

why does she choose to use the name of the country as the subject of address? A more probable 

explanation is that the interpreter brings in the third party and equates “you” to “Finland”, thus defining 

the “other” in the way that fits in her knowledge as well as ideological system. 

Case 2: 

ST: 另外呢，作为港美商会，你们也十分关心粤港之间的合作。 

(In addition, as American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, you are very interested in 

cooperation between Guangdong and Hong Kong.) 

TT: I know this council is also highly concerned with the cooperation between Guangdong and 

Hong Kong. 

In this case, the interpreter combines the second person pronoun “你们” with its modifying structure 

“作为港美商会”, and renders the combination into “this council”. Not only does the interpreter shifts 

from an animated subject into a non-animated one, but she also brings in a larger community 

(American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong), of which “你们”, presumably the two co-chairs of 

the chamber addressed by the speaker, are part of. 

4.2.2 Third Person Angle to Second Person Angle 

Now I shall move on and analyze the ways the interpreter renders the third person angle of discourse 

into the singular or plural form of second person pronoun “you”.  

Case 1:  

ST: 美国这些方面的技术啊、经验啊都很好，唯一的缺陷就是价格太贵了。 

(These technologies and experiences of the United States are certainly very good, but the only 

drawback is the high price.) 

TT: You have good technologies and experience, but the difficulty for us is that the price is very 

high.  

In this instance, the speaker talks about the United States as charging too high a price for its 

technologies. The interpreter renders “美国” not into “The United States”, but as “you”, which in effect 
84 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

makes the message more directed to the American official on-site of the political meeting. Rather than 

giving people the impression of talking about a third-party country in an objective manner, the 

interpreter chooses to equate the representative of the American government to the country itself, thus 

allocating the territory for the addresses as the “other”, and makes him the target of the issue that is 

brought to the surface of the table. 

Case 2:  

ST: 但是现在的所有的这些学习确实都有个结合中国国情的问题，因为我们知道这个发达

国家所有的这些技术啊，这个在引进的过程中间，是好东西，但是确实也是价格昂贵的东

西。 

(All this kind of learning should be conducted with consideration of the Chinese national 

condition. We know that all these technologies from developed countries are great things in the 

process of introduction to our country, be they are also very expensive things.) 

TT: And in terms of all the introduction and digestion of the foreign technologies, it is, em, very 

important to adapt them to the Chinese reality. You have very good technology, but it’s very 

expensive. 

In his case, the speaker talks about “发达国家” (developed countries) and signifies it as the 

“other” in binary opposition to “us” (China, which is a major developing country). In fact, the 

scope of “developed countries” is actually lager than the addressee of the message, who 

represents an entity that is undoubtedly not equal to the collection of developed countries. 

However, in rendering the “发达国家” into “you”, the interpreter not only equates the addressee 

with the developed countries as the “other” of the cultural and political construct, but also in 

effect narrows the scope of the message.  

As the sociocultural construct of identity is not something fixed and final but is something 

continuously refigured and adjusted by linguistic means in different context, the interpreters have 

established the identities of the “other” in relation to the narration and re-narration of human 

experiences, and through this, constructed the identities of the “self”. An utterance can be 

rendered in a number of different ways, so the process of interpreting always involves 

decision-making. Therefore, the interpreter’s choice of shifting between the personal angles 

between “us” and the “other” cannot be said to occur without the mediation from the interpreter 

and thus reflects the voice of the interpreter. 

 

5. Conclusion 

Despite the general belief that government staff interpreters in political settings should act in strict 

accordance with government policies and professional rules, corpus data of the 25 audiotaped authentic 

meetings between top officials of the People’s Government of Guangdong Province and foreign 

statesmen or corporate leaders suggest forcefully that actual instances of consecutive interpreting in a 

85 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

face-to-face mode is far more complex than the general belief or universal rules. The idea that 

interpreters in this kind of situations are a “faithful echo” is therefore questioned and challenged.  

The quantitative analysis of the corpus data suggests that interpreters do far more than accessing and 

transferring original messages and semantic contents in a transparent and neutral way. The qualitative 

analysis of the corpus data suggests that in performing their role(s), interpreters cannot be totally 

non-present, and that the single speaker-position reserved for the presentation as well as representation 

of the speaker do not always exist in a real-life interpreting situation. In order to perform the negotiator 

position, rather than a conduit role in a highly-complex network of communication and constraints, 

interpreters put themselves in the actual contexts and use personal angle shifts to regulate and mediate 

discourse.  

With the corpus data, hopefully I have been able to prove that interpreters working in the political 

setting are far from a commonly perceived echo machine of their speakers, but perform the role of a 

mediator clearly with embodied agency. Their not only speak with a voice in the political meetings, but 

project their own voice and show their presence as well as positions in a context charged with distinct 

political and cultural features. 

 

References 

Angelelli, C. (2001). Deconstructing the Invisible Interpreter: A Critical Study of the Interpersonal 

Role of the Interpreter in a Cross-cultural/linguistic Communicative Event (Unpublished doctoral 

dissertation). Stanford University, Palo Alto CA. 

Angelelli, C. (2004a). Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Angelelli, C. (2004b). Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A study of conference, court, and medical 

interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 

Angermeyer, P. S. (2005). Who is “you”? Polite forms of address and ambiguous participant roles in 

court interpreting. Target, 17(2), 203-226.  

Baker, M. (1997). Non-Cognitive Constraints and Interpreter Strategies in Political Interviews. In K. 

Simms (Ed.), Translating Sensitive Texts: Linguistic Aspects (pp. 111-129). Amsterdam and 

Atlanta, GA: Rodopi. 

Barker, C., & Galasinski, D. (2001). Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue on 

Language and Identity. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage.  

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (2001). Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves. In M. Wetherell et al. 

(Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader (pp. 261-271). London, Thousand Oaks and 

New Delhi: Sage.  

Inghilleri, M. (2003). Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target, 

15(2), 243-268. 

86 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 2, 2020 

Metzger, M. (1999). Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington 

DC: Gallaudet University Press. 

Pöchhacker, F. (2004). Introducing Interpreting Studies. London and New York: Routledge. 

Ren, W. (2010). The liaison interpreter’s subjectivity consciousness. Beijing: Foreign Language 

Teaching and Research Press. 

Roy, C. B. (2000). Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York and Oxford: Oxford University 

Press. 

Sanders, J. M. (1994). Perspective in Narrative Discourse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). 

Katholieke Universiteit, Brabant, Tilburg. 

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as Interaction. London and New York: Longman.  

 

 

87 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 


	Original Paper

