(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)

References

• Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation (3rd ed). Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, P. (2012). Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistics methods with critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(3), 247–256. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2012.688297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., KhosraviNik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273–306. doi: 10.1177/0957926508088962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton, M. (2007). Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament. The Translator, 13(2), 271–296. doi: 10.1080/13556509.2007.10799241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton-Thome, M. (2010). Negotiating Identities in the European Parliament: The role of simultaneous interpreting. In M. Baker, M. Olohan, & M. C. Perez (Eds.), Text and context: Essays on translation and interpreting in Honour of Ian Mason (pp. 117–138). Manchester: St. Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• Beaton-Thome, M. (2013). What’s in a word? your enemy combatant is my refugee: The role of simultaneous interpreters in negotiating the lexis of Guantánamo in the European Parliament. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(3), 378–399. doi: 10.1075/jlp.12.3.04bea
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diriker, E. (2004). De-/re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Eldridge, D. (2002). The construction of a courtroom. The judicial system and autopoiesis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(3), 298–316. doi: 10.1177/0021886302038003003
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London & New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gu, C. (2018). Forging a Glorious past via the ‘present perfect’: A corpus-based CDA analysis of China’s past Accomplishments discourse mediat(is)ed at China’s interpreted political press conferences. Discourse, Context and Media, 24, 137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu, C. (2019a). 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: 10.1080/17405904.2018.1538890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu, C. (2019b). Interpreters caught up in an ideological Tug-of-war?: A CDA and Bakhtinian analysis of interpreters’ ideological positioning and alignment at government press conferences. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 14(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1075/tis.00027.gu
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu, C. (2019c). (Re)manufacturing consent in English: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of government interpreters’ mediation of China’s discourse on PEOPLE at televised political press conferences. Target, 31(3), 465–499. doi: 10.1075/target.18023.gu
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Kidwell, K. S. (2009). Politics, performativity, autopoiesis: Toward a discourse systems theory of political culture. Cultural Studies – Critical Methodologies, 9(4), 533–558. doi: 10.1177/1532708608321403
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen, K. (2014). Institutional translation: The art of government by translation. Perspectives, 22(4), 479–492. doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2014.948887
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambropoulou, E. (1995). The autopoietic view of prison organization and of correctional reforms. In K. Ellis, A. Gregory, B. R. Mears-Young, & G. Ragsdell (Eds.), Critical issues in systems theory and practice (pp. 693–696). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Li, X. (2018). Reconstruction of modality in Chinese-English government press conference interpreting: A corpus-based study. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2004). Investigating public health emergency response information system Initiatives in China. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 73(9), 675–685. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.05.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (1990). Political theory and the welfare state. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, I. (1999). ‘Introduction’, in Ian Mason (ed.) Dialogue Interpreting, Special Issue of The Translator 5(2): 147–160.
   Google Scholar
• Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Mautner, G. (2009). Corpora and critical discourse analysis. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics (pp. 32–46). London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, T. (2012). Interpreters’ mediation of government press conferences in China: Participation framework, footing and face work. Unpublished PhD thesis. Manchester: University of Manchester.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London & New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, B., & Feng, D. (2018). A corpus-based study of stance-taking as seen from critical points in interpreted political discourse. Perspectives, 26(2), 246–260. doi: 10.1080/0907676X.2017.1395468
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widdowson, H. G. (1995). Discourse analysis: A critical view. Language and Literature, 4(3), 157–172. doi: 10.1177/096394709500400301
   Google Scholar
• Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–95). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, F., & Zhao, H. (2016). How to respond to journalists’ questions? A new perspective on Chinese premiers’ aggressiveness at press conferences (1993–2015). Asian Journal of Communication, 26(5), 446–465. doi: 10.1080/01292986.2016.1192210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar