Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6647
  • E-ISSN: 1569-982X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



We present here an ethnographic study of asylum court interpreting with remote participants and video links. First, we describe the multimodal resources interpreters have at their disposal to manage turn-taking and begin interpreting while an asylum seeker’s answer to a question has not come yet to a recognizable completion point. We distinguish between ‘implicit’ configurations, in which a collaborative turn transition is apparently achieved through reorientations of body and gaze, the use of discourse markers, or other conversational strategies, like overlaps and cases where a turn transition is achieved through the use of ‘explicit’ resources such as instructions to stop and requests to give brief answers. We show that the collaborative production of such long answers is affected by the remote placement of the interpreter, and that recurrent trouble in the management of turn transitions between the asylum seeker and the interpreter during extended narratives may be detrimental to the asylum seeker’s case.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Beach, W.
    (1993) Transitional regularities for casual “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics19, 325–352. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berk-Seligson, S.
    (1990) The bilingual courtroom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bohmer, C. & Schuman, A.
    (2008) Rejecting refugees: Political asylum in the 21st century. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bot, H.
    (2005) Dialogue interpreting in mental health. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Briggs, C.
    (2002) Interviewing, power/knowledge, and social inequality. InJ. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Danet, B. & Bogoch, B.
    (1980) Fixed fight or free-for-all? An empirical study of combativeness in the adversary system of justice. British Journal of Law and Society7 (1), 36–60. 10.2307/1409753
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1409753 [Google Scholar]
  7. Davidson, B.
    (2000) The interpreter as institutional gatekeeper: The social-linguistic role of interpreters in Spanish-English medical discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics4 (3), 329–405. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00121
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00121 [Google Scholar]
  8. Drew, P. & Galatolo, R.
    (2006) Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. Text & Talk26 (6), 661–698. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.028 [Google Scholar]
  9. Duranti, A.
    (2014) Anthropology of intentions. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Englund Dimitrova, B.
    (1997) Degree of interpreter responsibility in the interaction process in community interpreting. InS. Carr, R. Roberts, A. Dufour & D. Steyn (Eds.), The critical link: Interpreters in the community. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 147–164. 10.1075/btl.19.17eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.19.17eng [Google Scholar]
  11. Freed, A. & Ehrlich, S.
    (2010) Why do you ask? The function of questions and institutional discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gallez, E. & Maryns, K.
    (2014) Orality and authenticity in an interpreter-mediated defendant’s examination. Interpreting16 (1), 49–80. 10.1075/intp.16.1.04gal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.16.1.04gal [Google Scholar]
  13. Gardner, R.
    (2001) When listeners talk. Response tokens and listener stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.92
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.92 [Google Scholar]
  14. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2002) Ethnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gavioli, L.
    (2012) Minimal responses in interpreter-mediated medical talk. InC. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 201–228. 10.1075/btl.102.09gav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.09gav [Google Scholar]
  17. Goffman, E.
    (1961) Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodwin, C.
    (2013) The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics46, 8–23. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hale, S.
    (2004) The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2007) Community interpreting. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230593442
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230593442 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, J. & Clayman, S.
    (2010) Talk in action: Interactions, identities and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444318135
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135 [Google Scholar]
  22. Inghilleri, M.
    (2012) Interpreting justice: Ethics, politics and language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jacobsen, B.
    (2012) The significance of interpreting modes for question-answer dialogues in court interpreting. Interpreting14 (2), 128–158. 10.1075/intp.14.2.05jac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.2.05jac [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee, J.
    (2011) Translatability of speech style in court interpreting. The International Journal of Language, Speech and the Law18 (1), 1–34. 10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.1 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2014) A pressing need for the reform of interpreting service in asylum settings: A case study of asylum appeal hearings in South Korea. Journal of Refugee Studies27 (1), 62–81. 10.1093/jrs/fet007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fet007 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lerner, G. H.
    (1996) On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 238–276. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.005 [Google Scholar]
  27. Licoppe, C., Verdier, M., & Dumoulin, L.
    (2013) Courtroom interaction as a multimedia event: the work of producing relevant videoconference frames in French pre-trial hearings. Journal of Electronic Communication23(1–2), 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Licoppe, C., Verdier, M., & Veyrier, C.-A.
    (2018) Voice, power and turn-taking in multi-lingual, consecutively interpreted courtroom proceedings with video links. InR. Skinner, J. Napier, & S. Braun (Eds.). Here or there. Research on interpreting via video link. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, 299–322.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mason, I.
    (2012) Gaze, positioning and identity in interpreter-mediated dialogues. InC. Baraldi & L. Gavioli (Eds.), Coordinating participation in dialogue interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 177–200. 10.1075/btl.102.08mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.102.08mas [Google Scholar]
  30. Merlini, R.
    (2009) Seeking asylum and seeking identity in a mediated encounter: The projection of selves through discursive practices. Interpreting11 (1), 57–92. 10.1075/intp.11.1.05mer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.11.1.05mer [Google Scholar]
  31. Mondada, L.
    (2001) Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://franzoesistik.philhist.uni​bas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/franzoesistik/mondada_multimodal_conventions.pdf (accessed7 October 2019).
  32. Pöllabauer, S.
    (2004) Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility and power. Interpreting6 (2), 143–180. 10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.6.2.03pol [Google Scholar]
  33. Pomerantz, A. & Denvir, P.
    (2007) Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. InF. Cooren (Ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting. London: Routledge, 31–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Roy, C.
    (2000) Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schegloff, E.
    (1984) On some gestures’ relation to talk. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 266–298.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Stivers, T.
    (2004) No no no and other types of multiple sayings. Journal of Human Communication Research30 (2), 260–293. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  37. (2008) Stance, alignment and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research in Language and Social Interaction41 (1), 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  38. Wadensjö, C.
    (1998) Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2010) On the production and elicitation of expanded answers to yes/no questions in interpreter-mediated trials. InM. Baker, M. Olohan & M. Calzada Pérez (Eds.), Text and context: Essays on translation and interpreting in honour of Ian Mason. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing, 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): asylum; chunking; consecutive interpreting; courtroom interaction; turn-taking
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