This article analyzes three video-recorded asylum interviews, their written records and the corresponding decisions by the Finnish Immigration Service. The goal is to identify the causes and consequences of vulnerability in instances that are particularly important when assessing whether the asylum seeker has a well-grounded fear of persecution. A combination of linguistic, psychological and epistemic perspectives on vulnerability shows that these three dimensions are closely intertwined in asylum interviews. Linguistic vulnerability is linked for the most part to interpreting, whereas psychological vulnerability stems from the difficulty in recounting traumatic experiences. Both linguistic and psychological vulnerabilities are central forces that also lead to epistemic vulnerability. Epistemic vulnerability, we claim, gives rise to certain practices within the asylum procedure, which again represents the materialization of the discourses of reporting, truth and credibility.

This paper examines the ways in which the discourse of reporting, i.e. the implicit and explicit presence, production, and usage of written texts in public administration reifies monolingual and monolithic language ideologies in interpretermediated police interviews and screening interviews with asylum seekers. The goal is to provide new insights into the analysis of complex networks of power relations that determine whether human rights can actually be exercised through public service or community interpreting. The paper derives from ethnographic data emanating from participant observation as an interpreter for migrants, asylum seekers, and international offenders using French and English in the Helsinki metropolitan area in Finland. In addition to being an interpreter, the author is also a researcher informed by critical discourse studies and sociolinguistic theory. The main argument of the article is that many problems related to public service interpreting that are thought to stem from cultural differences or the interpreter’s general lack of competence can be interpreted as resulting from language ideologies, reified in the practices in which they appear. One of the most important of such practices is the discourse of reporting, effectively blurring the distinction between written and oral language and denaturalizing “spontaneous” speech of interpreter-mediated communicative encounters. The paper suggests that a critical reflection on the nature and function of language and multilingualism and the consequences of language use is necessary in order to allow the interpreter to occupy subject positions from which power relations can be negotiated and linguistic equality delivered. Such a reflection should be part of both interpreter and service provider training.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper analyzes the translation of five child protection assessments and decisions from Finnish into English. Translators of such text have to make difficult decisions in relation to the linguistic resources of the end users, namely the child’s parents or custodians, because it is impossible for the translator to assess their linguistic resources. Therefore, it is difficult to strike a balance between an accurate translation and a pragmatically felicitous translation. Besides, these texts are typically translated by community interpreters who have no formal training in translation. A total of 18 examples of translation problems related to terminology, nominalization, passive constructions, and speech representation were analyzed by mobilizing different linguistic theories related to each category. The results show that the target texts present several accommodation strategies aimed at rendering the translations more accessible. Thus, terms are explained or glossed, and terms, grammatical constructions, and complex forms of reported speech are simplified. More awareness-raising among different stakeholders is needed in order to produce translations that really empower migrant communities.