1. Conference interpreters have a professional identity that is shaped by how various actors and institutions depict the profession.
2. The professional image of conference interpreters is largely (meta-)discursive in nature.
3. Meta-discourse analysis can be used to explore the different depictions of conference interpreting and interpreters by various actors and institutions.
The article "Meta-discourse as a Source for Exploring the Professional Image(s) of Conference Interpreters" by Ebru Diriker explores the professional identity and image of conference interpreters. The author argues that the professional image of conference interpreters is largely (meta-)discursive in nature, shaped by various actors and institutions inside and outside the field of activity.
The article provides a comprehensive analysis of how different actors and institutions depict conference interpreting and interpreters in their discourse. However, there are some potential biases in the article that need to be addressed.
Firstly, the author seems to have a bias towards interpreting as a profession. While it is true that interpreting is a highly skilled profession, the author does not acknowledge any potential drawbacks or limitations of this profession. For example, there may be issues related to job insecurity, burnout, or ethical dilemmas that are not explored in this article.
Secondly, the author's analysis focuses mainly on positive depictions of conference interpreting and interpreters. While it is important to highlight positive aspects of any profession, it is equally important to acknowledge negative depictions or criticisms. This would provide a more balanced view of the profession and its challenges.
Thirdly, there are some unsupported claims in the article. For example, the author claims that "the professional image of conference interpreters is largely (meta-)discursive in nature." However, there is no evidence provided to support this claim. It would be helpful if the author could provide some empirical data or research studies to back up this assertion.
Fourthly, there are some missing points of consideration in the article. For example, while the author discusses how different actors depict conference interpreting and interpreters in their discourse, there is no discussion about how these depictions may vary across different cultures or regions. This could be an important factor to consider when exploring professional identity and image.
Finally, while the article provides valuable insights into how different actors shape the professional identity and image of conference interpreters through their discourse, it does not explore counterarguments or alternative perspectives on this issue. This limits its scope and potential impact.
In conclusion, while "Meta-discourse as a Source for Exploring the Professional Image(s) of Conference Interpreters" provides valuable insights into how different actors shape professional identity and image through their discourse, there are some potential biases and limitations that need to be addressed for a more balanced view of this issue.