International Open Access Journal Platform

1 Introduction

Diplomacy refers to the management of interstate relations and international disputes through meetings and negotiations (Xu & Li, 1998), and the interpreting activities involved fall within the domain of diplomatic interpreting (Xu et al., 2023). Against deepening globalization and shifting geopolitical landscapes, international exchanges have entered a new era marked by higher frequency, expanded multilateral cooperation and rising complexity. Diplomatic interpreting, as the “primary link” of the international communication chain for Chinese political discourse (Gu & Wang, 2021), has gained increasing strategic significance (Li et al., 2025). While traditionally viewed as a mere process of linguistic conversion, contemporary practice reveals that interpreting is deeply embedded in a dynamic network of political negotiation, cultural mediation, and the self-projection of national image. Academic discourse on national image construction is shifting from an “other-projection” model—reliant on external evaluations—to a “self-projection” model emphasizing proactive expression. Diplomatic interpreters play a pivotal role in constructing national discursive power during this transformation.

This strategic shift imposes new demands on theoretical research in diplomatic interpreting. The field must move beyond the paradigm of linguistic equivalence to address interpreter subjectivity, discursive power, and national cultural soft power. While scholars have conducted extensive research on theoretical frameworks, interpreter role positioning and translation strategies, existing studies mostly focus on fragmented individual findings. Comprehensive, systematic literature reviews remain scarce, and analyses of practical industry challenges are similarly fragmented. Therefore, systematically reviewing research progress, synthesizing key achievements in theoretical foundations, role perception, and translation strategies, and analyzing structural challenges from the perspectives of working conditions, political norms, technological change, and competency requirements is both an inherent requirement for disciplinary development and a practical necessity for responding to China’s international communication strategy.

In light of the above, this article aims to systematically review Chinese research on diplomatic interpreting, synthesize major accomplishments, analyze structural challenges, and offer forward-looking perspectives on future research directions, thereby contributing to theoretical development and practical advancement in the field.

2 Literature Review and Research Questions

Chinese research on diplomatic interpreting has evolved from early reliance on the Interpretive Theory to a multi-theoretical framework incorporating Skopos Theory and Relevance Theory. Gao and Sun (2013) adopted the triangular model of the Interpretive Theory and illustrated that diplomatic interpreting demands meaning equivalence across multiple dimensions. Huang (2011) argued that interpreters should prioritize the intended function of the target language under Skopos Theory. Tang and Li (2023) demonstrated how Relevance Theory enables interpreters to employ strategies such as explicitation and omission to convey communicative intent. Taken together, domestic research on diplomatic interpreting has built a pluralistic theoretical system centered on the Interpretive Theory, supplemented primarily by Skopos Theory and Relevance Theory.

In role perception, scholarship has shifted from viewing interpreters as “mouthpieces” to “co-constructors”. Deng and Huang (2015) identified three roles—mouthpiece, cultural coordinator, and social regulator—marking the establishment of a multi-role perspective. Fu et al. (2022) found that Chinese interpreters tended toward “invisibility” while American interpreters exhibited greater “visibility”, revealing context-dependent role differentiation.

In practical strategies, research has evolved from technique-oriented approaches to discourse construction. Li (1997) proposed syntactic linearity to address Chinese-English word order differences. Lin (2017) empirically revealed how interpreters strategically extend response time to maintain quality under pressure. More recently, Li and Ye (2025) found that interpreters construct China’s national image through precise lexical choice and Chinese-specific expressions. Li et al. (2025) demonstrated that interpreters expand dialogic space on non-sensitive topics and compress it on key policy statements.

Based on the above review, three gaps remain in the study of Chinese diplomatic interpreting. First, while several scholars have attempted theoretical integration, a complete systematic synthesis of diverse theoretical lenses is yet to be established, and the logical links between different approaches await further elaboration. Second, challenges such as high-intensity work and political sensitivity are noted, but their underlying mechanisms remain underexplored. Third, forward-looking discussion on evolving diplomatic practices and their implications for theory and training is limited. Against this backdrop, this study aims to delineate the logic of theoretical integration, the drivers of role transformation, and the trajectory of strategic evolution, while also analyzing the structural challenges confronting the field, so as to provide a reference framework for future research.

3 The Formation and Integration of a Pluralistic Theoretical Landscape

To address the need for systematic synthesis of research perspectives identified in Chapter 2, this section reviews existing theories from multiple angles, delineates their complementary integration, and constructs an integrated framework for Chinese diplomatic interpreting research.

3.1 The Interpretive Theory of Translation

Chinese diplomatic interpreting research has evolved from adopting a single theory to integrating multiple perspectives. The Interpretive Theory of Translation, with its triangular model of comprehension, deverbalization, and re-expression, serves as the foundational framework. Its core contribution lies in proving that interpreting consists of comprehending and restating intended meaning, rather than mechanical linguistic conversion. Gao and Sun (2013) applied this model to diplomatic interpreting, showing that interpretation operates across linguistic, emotional, cultural, logical, and political dimensions. Luo et al. (2015) provided quantitative evidence for the theory’s explanatory power by examining idioms in Chinese leaders’ speeches.

3.2 Skopos Theory

While the Interpretive Theory clarifies the essential nature of interpreting, it fails to sufficiently explain the goal-driven nature of diplomatic interpreting or the reasoning behind interpreters’ strategic decisions. Skopos Theory fills this gap by conceptualizing translation as a purpose-driven activity that foregrounds the intended function of the target text. Huang (2011) argued that interpreters should prioritize the target language’s intended function. Wang (2014) proposed principles of accuracy, flexibility, and cultural sensitivity for Chinese-specific terms. Hao (2016) identified strategies for rendering vague language under Skopos guidance.

3.3 Relevance Theory

If the Interpretive Theory addresses “what interpreting is” and Skopos Theory explains “why interpreters make certain choices”, Relevance Theory elucidates how these choices maximize communicative effects. Rooted in cognitive pragmatics, Relevance Theory argues that effective communication pursues optimal relevance: it delivers adequate contextual effects while minimizing listeners’ cognitive effort. Li (2018) applied this theory to analyze vague language translation during Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to Germany. Tang and Li (2023) demonstrated that interpreters’ integration of strategies such as omission and addition is fundamentally oriented toward optimizing cognitive effects.

3.4 Pathways and Challenges of Theoretical Integration

A closer examination reveals that these theories are not competing but complementary. The Interpretive Theory provides the ontological foundation, Skopos Theory offers a purpose-oriented analytical tool, and Relevance Theory explains cognitive mechanisms. Nevertheless, this pluralistic theoretical landscape brings two critical unresolved issues: how to realize effective integration across divergent theoretical perspectives, and what evaluation criteria to adopt when competing theories offer conflicting interpretations of a single phenomenon. These questions call for further synthesis by the academic community.

4 The Internal Logic and Practical Tensions of Role Transformation

4.1 From Mouthpiece to Multiple Roles

The role positioning of diplomatic interpreters is a key thread for understanding research progress in this field. The transformation from “mouthpiece” to “co-constructor” embodies a profound internal logic and persistent practical tensions.

Early scholarship framed interpreters as mere “mouthpieces” whose core priority is faithfulness, a stance shaped by the unique diplomatic context. Ren (2000) characterized diplomatic interpreting as involving a “low degree of flexibility”, with constrained discretionary space. This aligns with the nature of diplomatic work: discourse is politically sensitive, and any deviation may trigger misunderstandings or conflicts. However, as diplomatic practice has grown more complex, the adequacy of a single “mouthpiece” role has become increasingly questionable.

The tripartite reclassification of interpreters’ roles—mouthpiece, cultural coordinator, and social regulator—marked the establishment of a multi-role perspective (Deng & Huang, 2015). This framework recognizes that interpreters assume different functions depending on the situation. When faced with Chinese-specific terms, interpreters must act as “cultural coordinators”, bridging cultural gaps through interpretive translation. In social interaction settings, the “social regulator” role emerges, balancing diplomatic protocol with communicative effectiveness.

4.2 Ideological Intervention and Role Reconstruction

The intervention of ideological factors marks a critical juncture in role cognition. Because diplomatic interpreters represent the national stance, they must shift from “neutrality” to active “participation” (Li, 2014). While ordinary interpreting may aspire to neutrality, in the diplomatic domain, interpreters must align with the national position. Wang (2011) emphasized that diplomatic consciousness and a firm stance are essential core qualities for interpreters.

4.3 The Dynamic Tension Between Invisibility and Visibility

The interplay between “invisibility” and “visibility” constitutes the most tension-laden issue in role practice. Fu et al. (2022) provided a compelling case through their comparative study of the Sino-U.S. High-Level Strategic Dialogue. Chinese interpreters lean toward interpretive “invisibility”, featuring limited textual deviation and restrained emotional delivery; by contrast, their American counterparts adopt more “visible” interpreting marked by frequent deviations and overt negative emotional cues. This reveals that “invisibility” and “visibility” are not merely reflections of competence, but role choices shaped by distinct political contexts. Chinese interpreters’ “invisibility” is an active strategic choice grounded in the objective of accurately conveying China’s position.

Li et al. (2025) further demonstrated that interpreters expand dialogic space on non-sensitive topics to enhance audience reception and compress it on key policy statements to establish an irrefutable position. This context-dependent adjustment shows that contemporary interpreters engage in dynamic, strategic modulation between “invisibility” and “visibility” according to the communicative context. Wei (2023) corroborated this finding, showing that interpreters add positive appraisal resources in affirmative narratives and refutational resources in negative narratives, reflecting subjective participation under ideological guidance.

5 The Logic of Strategic Evolution

To shift challenge analysis from empirical description to mechanism analysis, this section traces strategy research’s evolution—from techniques to discourse. It elevates the discussion from scattered observations to analytical reasoning, offering a reference for understanding interpreters’ decision-making.

5.1 Foundational Accumulation in Linguistic Techniques

Research on diplomatic interpreting strategies has evolved from cataloging linguistic techniques to analyzing discourse construction, reflecting a progressive logic from “how to translate” to “why translate this way” to “what effects are produced”.

Studies on linguistic coping strategies tackle technical obstacles arising from syntactic and lexical disparities between Chinese and English. Li’s (1997) comparative analysis of word order and Zhong’s (2001) systematic summary of simultaneous interpreting principles provided operational guidance for diplomatic interpreting practice. These studies distilled effective strategies under high-pressure conditions, forming the foundational layer of knowledge accumulation. However, research confined to the technical level reduces translation to a technical problem, neglecting the socio-cultural context and political functions underlying translational behavior.

5.2 The Functional Turn Under Skopos Theory

The introduction of Skopos Theory marked a shift from “technique” to “function”. Hao’s (2016) analysis of strategies for handling vague language demonstrates that interpreters’ choices are governed by communicative purposes, not technical equivalence. Wang’s (2014) formulation of accuracy, flexibility, and cultural sensitivity for interpreting Chinese-specific terms reflects the same shift. The essence of this transformation lies in relocating the criterion for strategic rationality from linguistic conformity to the realization of communicative effects.

5.3 Theoretical Elevation Through Discourse Construction

The discourse construction perspective has elevated strategy research by repositioning diplomatic interpreting from passive linguistic conversion to active discourse construction. Li and Ye (2025) find that interpreters shape a credible, lovely and respectable national image via precise lexical choices, China-specific terminology and deliberate use of the modal verb “should”. This reveals that every linguistic choice may participate in shaping the national image. Wei’s (2023) research on “selective addition” further confirms that interpreters strategically strengthen or weaken narratives in accordance with ideological positions.

5.4 Implications of the Evolutionary Logic

The evolution from technique to discourse demonstrates that diplomatic interpreting research has moved beyond linguistic conversion to engage with how translational acts participate in constructing social reality. This shift has expanded theoretical horizons and generated new requirements for interpreter training: future diplomatic interpreters need not only a solid linguistic foundation but also a deep understanding of the political sensitivity of discourse strategies and their potential impact on diplomatic outcomes.

6 Discourse Construction and National Image

6.1 Stylistic Features of Diplomatic Interpreting Discourse

Diplomatic interpreting discourse exhibits salient written-language features—weak interactivity, formal register, complex syntax, and an impersonal style—with a persuasive function (Li, 2014), distinguishing it from ordinary spoken discourse. This indicates that diplomatic interpreting is a highly processed register through which interpreters achieve formal and accurate information transmission. Zhang (2012) found clear, cohesive, explicitation in diplomatic interpreting, where interpreters make implicit logical relationships explicit, further confirming its convergence toward standardized written language.

6.2 Intervention Shifts in Reporting Verbs and Stance Expression

The choice of reporting verbs carries special significance in diplomatic interpreting discourse. A diachronic study found that nearly half of reporting verb pairs exhibit intervention shifts, primarily through addition and omission, with a steady upward trend (Li et al., 2025). Interpreters compress or expand dialogic space according to context: expanding on non-sensitive topics to enhance audience reception, and compressing on key policy statements to establish irrefutable positions. This indicates that intervention shifts serve as a strategic means for interpreters to achieve the self-projection of national image.

6.3 Lexical Selection and Image Construction Strategies

Li and Ye (2025) found that interpreters construct a credible, lovable, and respectable national image through precise lexical choice, Chinese-specific expressions, and the medium-value modal verb “should” at semantic, syntactic, and stylistic levels. This reveals that linguistic details participate in image construction through implicature and presupposition, often below the threshold of audience awareness. For instance, choosing “should” over “must” balances stance assertion with approachability.

6.4 Boundaries and Ethics of Discourse Construction

The recognition of discourse construction raises a theoretical question: if interpreters’ discursive choices participate in national image construction, where are the boundaries? To what extent can interpreters actively construct, and to what extent must they remain faithful to the source? This involves the theoretical tension between discourse construction theory and the traditional principle of faithfulness, as well as a deeper exploration of ethical norms in diplomatic interpreting.

7 A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Structural Challenges

Existing literature indicates that diplomatic interpreting faces challenges across four dimensions: workload, political constraints, technological disruption, and talent cultivation. Yao (2022) identified high-intensity work pressure in the working environment; Shi (2007) and Ren (2000) pointed to structural constraints arising from political sensitivity; the pressure of technological change has attracted increasing scholarly attention in recent years; and the expansion of competency requirements from linguistic skills to comprehensive professional qualities reflects ongoing demands for capacity building. These challenges are interconnected in practice, forming a systemic network.

7.1 Working Environment

The primary challenge lies in the tension between finite cognitive resources and the escalating demands of the task. Diplomatic interpreting is marked by high intensity, high pressure, and extensive domain knowledge (Yao, 2022). Interpreters need to finish auditory comprehension, code switching and language output within seconds, and all these tasks take place within highly politically sensitive scenarios. Lin (2017) shows that interpreters extend reaction time to seven seconds—a compensatory response to cognitive depletion. Wang and Chen (2002), drawing on Gile’s Effort Model, note that errors in simultaneous interpreting often stem from attention overload caused by proper nouns or high information density. They recommend repairing obvious errors promptly and recovering omitted information at appropriate moments within available cognitive capacity.

The “zero tolerance” requirement sharpens this tension. Each error carries political consequences, intensifying psychological strain. Prolonged high-pressure work can impair attention and cause decision fatigue, creating a vicious cycle of “high pressure—fatigue—increased error risk—heightened strain”. Cognitive compensation strategies vary by stress level: under mild stress, time-buffering improves quality; beyond a critical threshold, interpreters can only resort to omission or simplification.

7.2 Political Norms

The strict constraints on flexibility stem from a dual constraint paradox: interpreters must remain faithful to the source text while ensuring the target text achieves its intended function. Early literature (Ren, 2000; Shi, 2007) characterized diplomatic interpreting as a “low-flexibility” category, emphasizing rigid political constraints. Fu et al. (2022) show that Chinese interpreters actively suppress personal flexible expression in politically sensitive settings—a deliberate strategic choice, not passive compliance. Li et al. (2025) further reveal that compressing dialogic space in key policy statements reflects a dynamic balance between faithfulness and effectiveness.

Political sensitivity forms a multi-layered constraint system: the outer layer sets “sayable/unsayable” boundaries; the middle layer imposes “how to say” discourse norms; the inner layer demands creative strategic adjustment within constraints. This system is context-dependent: Regulatory constraints loosen for non-sensitive topics and grant interpreters greater flexibility; on core national stances and sovereignty issues, such constraints tighten drastically and limit interpreters’ discretionary agency. Different interpreters’ strategic choices relate to their political experience, policy understanding, and risk preferences.

7.3 Technological Change

The uncertainty from emerging technologies stems from structural tension between technological logic and diplomatic logic. Owing to high political sensitivity, heavy cultural connotations and demands for active discourse construction, machine translation cannot fully replace human diplomatic interpreters (Li & Qi, 2023). Technological logic stresses efficiency, consistency, and scalability; diplomatic logic prioritizes flexible political judgment, deep cultural interpretation, and strategic discourse construction. As basic language conversion becomes technology-assisted, interpreters’ value shifts toward cultural interpretation, political judgment, and discourse construction—areas technology cannot easily replace.

This raises key questions: Does technological intervention alter the “invisibility/visibility” dynamic? How can interpreters control political effects under technology-assisted conditions? How should translation quality standards be redefined in human-machine collaboration? Currently, speech recognition and machine translation assist with terminology and real-time retrieval, but at the core language conversion and discourse strategy levels, intervention remains limited. This “assistance without replacement” phase requires interpreters to strengthen irreplaceable skills while adopting new tools, fostering the coexistence of technological dependence and
vigilance.

7.4 Competency Requirements

The upgrading of competency requirements stems from the structural contradiction between demand for interdisciplinary talent and specialized training systems. Language proficiency, knowledge breadth, and comprehension are basic requirements (Huang, 2001); diplomatic awareness and political stance are core elements (Wang, 2011); memory, predictive ability, and adaptability are key competencies (Cui, 2002). Recent studies show that interpreters also need discourse-level ability to actively construct national image (Li & Ye, 2025; Li et al., 2025). Competency requirements have thus expanded from language skills to a composite of linguistic competence, cross-cultural communication, political literacy, and discourse construction.

As China becomes more active internationally, diplomatic interpreting’s function has expanded from information transmission to discursive power negotiation and image self-projection. Yet contemporary higher education adopts siloed disciplinary training models: foreign language majors focus on linguistic proficiency, international relations programs nurture political awareness, and communication curricula build capacities for discourse construction. Diplomatic interpreting requires its organic integration. Most interpreters follow a “mastering language first, supplementing other competencies later” model—a “patchwork” approach with limited efficiency. Resolving this tension between single-discipline training and interdisciplinary demands is the fundamental challenge.

7.5 Interaction Among the Four Challenges

These four challenges are intertwined and mutually reinforcing, forming a systemic network. High-intensity work amplifies the psychological burden of political sensitivity: under political constraints, cognitive resource consumption increases as interpreters must process information and weigh political consequences in each decision. Technological change exacerbates workplace uncertainty: when technology transforms traditional models, interpreters must navigate the tension between technological and diplomatic logic while adapting to new tools. Rising competency requirements increase training difficulty: simultaneously cultivating language ability, political literacy, cross-cultural competence, and discourse construction within limited time and energy is extremely challenging. This systemic nature requires researchers to consider interactions among challenges when analyzing any single dimension, rather than examining each in isolation.

8 Conclusion and Future Directions

8.1 Major Findings

This study reviewed Chinese research on diplomatic interpreting from three dimensions—theoretical foundations, role perception, and translation strategies—and analyzed structural challenges from four perspectives: working environment, political norms, technological change, and competency requirements.

First, Chinese diplomatic interpreting research has developed a pluralistic framework centered on the Interpretive Theory, with Skopos Theory and Relevance Theory as complements. The Interpretive Theory reveals the multi-dimensional interpretive nature of diplomatic interpreting; Skopos Theory foregrounds intended function; Relevance Theory explains cognitive strategy choices. The integration of these theoretical perspectives remains an ongoing scholarly endeavor.

Second, interpreters have transformed from “mouthpiece” to “co-constructor”. Ideological factors have broken traditional neutrality, and interpreters’ agentive role in maintaining national positions and constructing national image has become prominent. The tension between “invisibility” and “visibility” drives role practice, with interpreters modulating dynamically according to context.

Third, research has expanded from linguistic techniques to discourse construction and national image-building. This evolution from technique to function to discourse reflects deepening scholarly understanding, shifting attention to how translational acts construct social reality.

Fourth, the field faces four structural challenges: high-intensity pressure, political constraints, technological uncertainty, and rising competency demands. The working environment challenge stems from the tension between limited cognitive resources and unlimited task demands; the political norms challenge stems from the double-bind between faithfulness and effectiveness; the technological challenge stems from the structural tension between technological and diplomatic logic; and the competency challenge stems from the contradiction between interdisciplinary demand and specialized training. These challenges interact and reinforce one
another.

8.2 Future Directions

Four avenues are proposed for future research. First, scholars may adopt experimental methods and in-depth interviews to unpack the internal mechanisms of these challenges, verify relevant hypotheses and explore their interactive patterns. Second, examine how technological assistance affects interpreters’ strategic adjustments and role perception, and identify irreplaceable competencies in human-machine collaboration. Third, explore interdisciplinary training and modular curriculum design to build talent cultivation systems for the new era. Fourth, strengthen collaboration with practitioners to translate research into teaching, selection, and quality assessment, fostering a cycle where theory informs practice and practice enriches theory.

References

[1] Cui, H. Z. (2002). Basic abilities and skills in Japanese-Chinese and Chinese-Japanese simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Putian University, 9(1), 49-52.

[2] Deng, J. H., & Huang, Y. F. (2015). A study on the role of interpreters in political diplomacy. Theory Journal, 9, 118-125.

[3] Fu, L. N., Sun, C., & Mao, Y. S. (2022). “Invisibility” and “visibility” of interpreters in political interpreting: A comparative study of interpreters in China-US High-Level Strategic Dialogue. Foreign Language Research, 2, 63-71+108.

[4] Gao, W. H., & Sun, D. (2013). A preliminary analysis of the interpretive approach in diplomatic interpreting. Education and Teaching Forum, 28, 144-145.

[5] Gu, C., & Wang, B. (2021). Interpreter-mediated discourse as a vital source of meaning potential in intercultural communication: The case of the interpreted premier-meets-the-press conferences in China. Language and Intercultural Communication, 21(3), 379-394.

[6] Hao, M. (2016). Translation strategies of vague language in diplomatic interpreting under the Skopos theory: A case study of government press conference interpreting. Overseas English, 14, 88-90.

[7] Huang, S. H. (2011). The guiding role of Skopos theory in diplomatic interpreting. Journal of Hebei Polytechnic University (Social Science Edition), 1, 132-134.

[8] Huang, Z. Y. (2001). Some basic qualities of diplomatic interpreters. Journal of Qingdao Ocean University of Shipping, 1, 68-72.

[9] Li, C. S. (1997). Similarities between Chinese and English word order and simultaneous interpretation techniques. Chinese Translators Journal, 6, 9-10.

[10] Li, X. (2014). A multidimensional study on stylistic features of diplomatic interpreting discourse. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, 5, 42-45+61.

[11] Li, X., & Qi, W. (2023). Characteristics, principles, and challenges of diplomatic interpreting in the new era: An interview with Ambassador Xu Yanan. Chinese Translators Journal, 2, 121-129.

[12] Li, X., & Ye, T. (2025). Construction of national image in diplomatic interpreting: Based on transcripts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs press conferences during the Two Sessions. Journal of Renmin University of China, 8, 71-76.

[13] Li, X., Pan, F., & Guan, X. C. (2025). Engagement shift of reporting verbs in diplomatic interpreting: A diachronic corpus-based study. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education, 2, 47-54+103.

[14] Li, X. F. (2018). Interpretation techniques of vague language in diplomatic affairs from a relevance theory perspective: A case study of Premier Li Keqiang’s three visits to Germany. Journal of Guangxi Education Institute, 4, 74-79.

[15] Lin, G. J. (2017). “Forgiveness” strategy in diplomatic interpreting under the reaction time and choice number model: A case study of the Premier’s press conference at the Fifth Session of the 12th NPC in 2017. Overseas English, 10, 130-131.

[16] Luo, J. J., Zhang, C., & Jing, C. (2015). Exploration of the interpretation of idioms and proverbs in national leaders’ diplomatic speeches from a sense-based theory perspective. Overseas English, 12, 107-109.

[17] Ren, X. P. (2000). Flexibility in diplomatic interpreting. Chinese Translators Journal, 5, 40-44.

[18] Shi, Y. H. (2007). How to do diplomatic interpreting well. Chinese Translators Journal, 3, 57-60.

[19] Tang, F. F., & Li, X. Q. (2023). Organic integration of diversified processing methods: A study on discourse markers in Chinese-English diplomatic interpreting. Comparative Study of Cultural Innovation, 25, 31-35, 41.

[20] Wang, S. Y., & Chen, X. R. (2002). The paradox of information retrieval and effort allocation models: Re-processing of omissions/errors in simultaneous interpretation. Journal of Hubei University of Automotive Technology, 4, 77-80.

[21] Wang, X. Q. (2011). A brief discussion on the basic qualities required of interpreters in diplomatic interpreting. Cai Zhi, 16, 194.

[22] Wang, F. F. (2014). A study on the interpretation of words with Chinese characteristics in foreign affairs from the perspective of Skopos theory. Journal of Xinyang Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 34(5), 104-108.

[23] Wei, Y. S. (2023). Exploration of interpreter discourse reconstruction in the political field. Western Academic Journal, 13, 169-172.

[24] Xu, W. S., Chang, L. H., & Han, C. H. (2023). A study on Chinese diplomatic interpreting at the Geneva Conference from the perspective of visual narrative. Foreign Language Teaching Theory and Practice, 3, 87-97.

[25] Xu, Y. N., & Li, J. Y. (1998). Foreign affairs translation: Interpreting and translation skills. World Affairs Press.

[26] Yao, B. (2022). Characteristics and challenges of diplomatic interpreting as seen from interpreters’ memoirs. Chinese Science & Technology Translation, 1, 24-27.

[27] Zhang, Z. J. (2012). Exploring explicitation of cohesion in Chinese-English diplomatic interpreting from the perspective of logical connectors: A corpus-based study. Fuyang Normal University Journal (Social Science Edition), 6, 50-53.

[28] Zhong, W. H. (2001). Techniques and training of English-Chinese simultaneous interpretation. Chinese Translators Journal, 5, 40-44.