John Benjamins Publishing Company
This is a contribution from Interpreting 12:1
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post
this PDF on the open internet.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
“That is not necessary for you to know!”
Negotiation of participation status of unaccompanied
children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings
Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
Linköping University
This article is a study of how the participation status of asylum-seeking children is interactively constructed in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings. We
have undertaken a discourse analysis of 50 non-repair side-sequences from 26
hearings with Russian-speaking, asylum-seeking children in Sweden. A sidesequence is here defined as a monolingual sequence conducted in only one of
the languages involved in the interviews. It involves the interpreter and only one
of the primary interlocutors. In this article, four extracts are chosen for a microanalysis in order to elucidate how interpreters can challenge asylum-seeking
children’s participant statuses. We show that the right of the child to make his
or her voice heard can be challenged, especially when the interpreters exclude,
distort, discredit and guide the voices of the children, which is often done with
the tacit approval of caseworkers.
Keywords: participation rights, asylum hearing, children, interpreter-mediated
talk, side-sequences
Introduction
In this study we analyse how interpreters may challenge asylum-seeking childrens’
participant statuses. We explore how these children can become disempowered
when interpreters exclude them from interaction, or distort, discredit and guide
their voices. The analysis emanates from a theoretical perspective assuming that
participant statuses are interactively constructed. We show that interpreters can
be powerful participants in the asylum-seeking hearings when they, in interaction
with caseworkers, position the asylum- seeking children as side participants.
Interpreting 12:1 (2010), 83–104. doi 10.1075/intp.12.1.04kes
issn 1384–6647 / e-issn 1569–982X © John Benjamins Publishing Company
84
Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
Policies and practices in the reception of asylum-seeking children in Sweden
Since the collapse of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s,
the category of asylum seekers has expanded greatly to include new subjects, new
migratory patterns and new forms of persecution (Bhabha 2004; Bhabha & Young
1999).
The increased number of asylum seekers and their changed profile, origin
and age placed considerable economic and political constraints on the refugee
legislation and reception practices of the receiving countries. The deficiency of
the existing systems became especially apparent in cases of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, whose needs as both children and refugees could not be
fully addressed. In order to solve this issue, the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have been incorporated into the refugeerelated legislation and praxis of the receiving countries. Such principles call for
decision-making that will be in the best interests of the child (Article 3) and they
emphasize the right of the children to express their views and opinions in dealings concerning themselves (Article 12). These principles are incorporated in the
Swedish Aliens´ Law and are consequently announced as guidelines for the migration authorities assessing cases concerning asylum-seeking children (Migrationsverket 2001).
The practitioners working with asylum-seeking children have the responsibility for conducting the interviews in a child-sensitive and non-conducive manner.
The case workers should obtain necessary information from the children by listening to them and respecting their reports (Cederborg 2004). Yet, authorities often
encounter considerable difficulties when translating these policy goals into actual
practice. One reason is the presence and involvement of unskilled interpreters in
asylum hearings, as they may be unfamiliar with case workers’ job and the need
for neutral, accurate, unbiased and comprehensive interpretations that are true to
the speaker’s style, level of usage and perceived intent (Benmaman 1992; Keselman
et al. 2008).
According to Swedish law, a person who does not speak Swedish or has a
hearing impairment has the right to have an interpreter present not only during
court trials but also in other legal situations (Wadensjö 1998). Migration authorities usually require certified interpreters, since authorization is acknowledged as
a minimum quality warrant. As a rule, caseworkers of the Migration Board have a
list of authorised interpreters who have assisted them a number of times and who
have proven themselves to be qualified for interpreting from and into a particular
minority language. The caseworkers try to book interpreters with whom they feel
secure for asylum hearings with both adult and child clients (Juhlén 2003). Caseworkers who are stationed in smaller cities do not, however, always have access
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings
to well-reputed, authorised interpreters and have to rely on the choices made for
them by interpreting agencies. Such agencies vary greatly in their recruitment
criteria when it comes to level of education and professional skills of the interpreters and possess few or no instruments for quality assessment and control in
each individual case (SOU 2004: 15). In the end, a great deal of the interpreting is
performed by unauthorised free-lance interpreters, predominantly members of a
minority population, who vary greatly in educational background and training
(SOU 2005: 37). In addition, free-lance interpreters, in order to increase their opportunities for income, often register with several private agencies, which compete
with each other by offering low-cost interpreting and may thus have an incentive
to hire individuals who are willing to accept work for less money than trained,
competent and authorised practitioners (Niska 2004).
The only supervising authority that has the right to impose sanctions in cases
of complaints concerning interpreters’ unprofessional or unethical behaviour is
the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (Kammarkollegiet).It has the right to withdraw authorization in cases of authorised interpreters
only. This authority has no right, however, to prohibit the interpreter in question
to continue working as a non-certified interpreter (God Tolksed 2004). Issuing
legal sanctions or reprimands in cases of this latter group is almost impossible, as
the legal ties between a free-lancer and his/her respective agency are only superficial. All this has consequences for issues of accountability and for the quality of
community interpreting services.
Despite the difference in professional status between these two groups, the
majority of the interpreters active in Sweden remain unauthorised; out of 5000
interpreters registered in 2004, only 825 were certified (SOU 2004: 15). One reason for this might be that interpreters see this occupation as low-status, underpaid, temporary and at odds with their initial professional background (Wadensjö
1998). This situation is considered to be unfavourable, especially in cases when
sudden increases in the influx of certain refugee populations tax the capacity of
interpreting services (SOU 2004: 15; SOU 2005: 37), in which case, restricted access to authorised interpretation might have far-reaching legal and existential consequences for the claimants. This was the case in 2004–2005, when the number of
Russian-speaking asylum seekers registered by the migration authorities increased
substantially within a short period of time. This particular group of asylum seekers
required 6000 hours of interpreting services in 2004 alone (SOU 2004: 15, SOU
2005: 37), a service that the thirty-six Russian-speaking authorized interpreters
could not possibly have provided by themselves.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
85
86 Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
Children in multi-party talk
Studies of multi-party talk involving children in institutional settings have shown
that the status and role of the children are not predetermined but are open to negotiation throughout the process of interaction. The ways in which the adults address
children are partially conditioned by the setting, by their understanding of the interactional goals and the ways the child and the adult appear to each other in turnby-turn interaction. The child’s participation is also intimately related to notions
of face and face-work. This has been firmly established by research on educational
and healthcare settings (Goodwin 1990; Aronsson 1991; Aronsson & Cederborg
1991, 1996; Aronsson & Rundström 1988; Aronsson & Evaldsson 1993).
Even if the status of children may develop and change in talk with adults, there
is usually an inherent asymmetry in the participant rights of the two interlocutors. For instance, high-control adults (e.g. parents) may act as regulators of social
distance and determine whether the child is cut off from the ongoing discourse or
not (Aronsson 1991). Children, as well as the elderly, disabled and foreigners are
often treated as less skilled interlocutors who are not believed to share means of
communication and insights equally with other participants. Adults, motivated by
their concern to promote the participation rights of these groups of clients, might
tend to foreground themselves as mediators, supporters and coordinators of talk,
and may distance themselves from their principal roles as care providers and decision-makers (Finlay et al. 2008). This applies equally to community interpreters,
who are often negotiated into assuming a more interventionist role than the one
prescribed by their professional code (Wadensjö 1998, 2008; Roy 2000).
The role of coordinator or promoter of talk is powerful, charged with potential
conflict between the value of promoting interaction and that of respecting the individual’s right to determine what to say and how (Nikku 1997). Asymmetry of power becomes visible in interaction in a number of ways. It can be traced in the way
interlocutors address each other, the utterances they choose to take up or ignore,
the options they offer and the manner in which they do so (Jenkinson 1993). In
other words, empowerment is about what happens between people from moment
to moment, in the mundane details of everyday interaction (Finlay et al. 2008).
Methodology
Data
The study is based on data from a larger study with a corpus of 26 audio-recorded
asylum hearings (three screening interviews and 23 in-depth interviews) with 26
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings
Russian-speaking asylum-seeking unaccompanied minors (6 girls and 20 boys).
All three screening interviews were conducted with the minors soon after their
arrival in Sweden. Sixteen of the in-depth interviews were initial interviews, and
seven were so-called additional interviews (two of which were requested by the
minors themselves and five by the caseworkers). The adolescents´ stated chronological ages when interviewed ranged from 14 to 18 years of age (M=16.0 years),
and they had been in Sweden between one week and two years. The in-depth interviews involved children who had been attending school in Sweden. The interviewing caseworkers were of Swedish origin and had no command of the Russian
language. In total, 18 individuals acted as interpreters. One interpreter participated in four cases, one in three cases, three in two cases, and fourteen in only one
case. Data describing the professional background of the interpreters was found
during the archive studies of the children’s files. It was possible in those cases (22
of the 26) where the interpreters present at the respective hearings were referred
to by name. These names were checked in the list of authorised interpreters published by the Kammarkollegiet. Four interpreters, participating in a total of ten
asylum hearings, were identified as authorised and had additional proficiency in
court interpreting; ten interpreters, participating in a total of twelve asylum hearings, lacked official authorization; three interpreters could not be identified, as
their identity was codified in the files; and one file was missing at the time of the
archive studies. In three cases chosen for analysis in this paper, the interpreters
were identified as unauthorized; in the other case (case 17) the identity of the
interpreter was codified.
The interviews were tape-recorded by the caseworkers, who agreed to send the
audio tapes to the first author, to be transcribed for the purposes of the research
project. Personal details and references to places that might allow identification
were removed from the transcripts to ensure that none of the participants could
be recognized, but these changes did not affect the information reported here. The
study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Linköping University, Sweden
(Dnr 2002–0144).
Methods
The larger project of which this study forms part involves studies with both quantitative and qualitative methods (Keselman et al. 2008). In the present study we use
a qualitative method when focusing on side-sequence talk. We chose a discourse
analytic approach since this method views naturally occurring talk as social interaction and as communicative events in which content and social relations are negotiated and determined (Wadensjö 2008). The analysis is based on ethnographic
background information and on an analysis of the actual discourse.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
87
88
Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
When we identified side-sequences, we drew on the coding from a previous
study (Keselman et al. 2009), which assessed the quality of interpreters’ renditions
of the minors´ responses in all 26 interviews. In that study we distinguished the
following categories of interpreted renditions: close, summarized, expanded, divergent and zero (when no rendition was provided). In addition, we defined nonrenditions as contributions provided by the interpreter which have no source or
counterpart in a primary party’s utterance (Wadensjö 1998). The non-renditions
gave rise to monolingual sequences (in either Swedish or Russian) between one
primary party (the minor or the caseworker) and the interpreter. These monolingual dyadic sequences are here defined as side-sequences.
The notion of side-sequence was first used by Jefferson (1972). According to
Svennevig (1999: 258) it can be defined as a sequence which does not belong to
the ongoing main discursive project (the main activity itself) but which is inserted
into it, as a sort of partial digression. The side-sequence could be either sequentially implicative, i.e. consequential for the ensuing main activity, or parenthetical,
i.e. somehow elicited by and related to the main conversational activity without
contributing to its progression (1999: 291).
In our data, we identified a special kind of side-sequences, namely sequences
in which the interpreters, at least momentarily and partially, assume the role of
main speaker or author (Goffman 1981). Such side-sequences were often initiated as other-repair, either by the interpreter or by somebody else, and had to do
with trouble in speaking, hearing or understanding (Schegloff et al. 1977). In this
role the interpreter occupies the position of a primary participant who initiates
or contributes to a subordinate activity that is inserted into the jointly focused interaction (Wadensjö 2008). An example of a repair-initiated sequence is given in
(1) where the caseworker asks about the relatives the girl stayed with back in her
home country.
(Case 1: Mariam) Participants: A= applicant (Mariam), C= caseworker
(female), I= interpreter (female). Our English translations of both originals
(by the primary party) and renditions (by the interpreter) in Swedish and
Russian appear in italics. Numbers on the left refer to turns rather than lines
(as in CA).
1. C:
2. I:
3. А:
Och vem bodde du med här?
And who did you live with there?
И с кем вместе, вот, вы жили по этому адресу?
And who [filler] did you live on this address together with?
Ээ, с дядей, тетей и ихним сыном.
Eh, with an uncle, aunt and their son.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings 89
4.→I: Э, дядя, тетя по маме или по папе?
Eeh, uncle, aunt on the mother’s оr father’s side?
5.→A:Это вот это, которая бабушка там, это ее сын и его жена и их
ребенок.
That’s that, the granny there, it’s her son and his wife and their kid.
6. I:Eh, det, den gamla gumman som jag har berättat tidigare om, som finns
där, det är hennes son och hans fru och deras… barn, deras son också.
Eh, it, the old lady that I’ve talked about before, who is there, it’s her son
and his wife and their… child, their son as well.
7. C: O.K
8. I:Hon säger moster, eventuellt faster, morbror, eventuellt farbror, och när
jag försökte få fram om det var mor- eller farbror, till exempel, då sa hon
att det var den där… gamla gumman.
She says “aunt”, might be father’s sister, “uncle”, might be father’s brother,
and when I tried to find out if it was mother’s or father’s brother, for
example, then she said that it was that… old lady.
As this sequence continues, the girl provides the explanation that the old lady she
has been staying with is her maternal grandmother’s sister.This type of clarification occurs frequently in our data as it deals with the difference in terminology
defining kinship in the Russian and Swedish languages. In contrast to the Swedish
language, the Russian language, similarly to English, requires the use of additional
qualifiers in order to explicitly define kinship on the maternal or paternal side. By
initiating such repair sequences interpreters pursue their normative task as the
information elicited by them contributes to the progression of the hearing and has
an impact on the efficiency of the interviewing process.
Such sequences, initiated by the interpreter and focusing on repair, were by far
the most common in our data. A side-sequence in these interpreter-mediated encounters may effectively exclude one party from interaction, namely the one who
does not understand the language of the side-sequence. This participant will then
be relegated to a position of peripheral participant or “non person”. In particular,
the participant status of the child may occasionally be endangered. Accordingly,
there are sequences that go well beyond simple repair. It is these latter, non-repair
sequences that we selected for analysis in the present study.
In our total data of 120 sequences, we found 51 non-repair sequences where
the voice of the child was either excluded from interaction or guided. They occurred in six different hearings, featuring six (out of the 18) interpreters. Half of
the sequences occurred in one hearing (Case 11), one fourth in another hearing
(Case 9) and the rest were relatively evenly distributed among the other four hearings (17, 19, 23, 20). After scrutinizing these sequences in detail, we finally chose
to analyse more closely those side-sequences where the interpreters challenged
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
90 Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
the asylum-seeking child’s participant status and thereby the aims of the hearing.
Their counterproductive effects emerged during the interaction. Here we analyse
four relatively clear cases (drawn from the 51 non-repair sequences), in which
interpreters excluded (Excerpt 1), distorted (Excerpt 2), discredited (Excerpt 3)
or guided (Excerpt 4) the voices of the children. Their problematic character was
recognized by the excluded party, as evidenced in the interaction itself. In other
words, these sequences were (sooner or later) identified as sources of misalignment or miscommunication by at least one of the interlocutors (a child or a caseworker).
Our excerpts are named after the Russian adolescents, who have been given
the following fictive names: Anton, Ismail, Roman, Andrej.
Analyses
Excluding the child
The first excerpt is from an interview with Anton, who was 14 years old at the time
and had been smuggled into Sweden. Prior to this sequence the caseworker and
the boy had been engaged in a discussion concerning the whereabouts of Anton’s
father, the only living relative the boy could be reunited with. All efforts previously made by the authorities to find out who the father was and where he lived
had been unsuccessful. In turn 1, the caseworker gives an assignment to the boy’s
guardian, to contact voluntary organizations.
(1) (Case 9: Anton) Participants: A= applicant (Anton), C= caseworker (female),
L= lawyer (male), I= interpreter (female), G= guardian (female)
1. C:mm… Men det alltså det skulle vara en uppgift för din godeman… att
kontakta de frivilliga organisationerna diskutera frågan… jag tror att…
Mm but this could be an assignment for your guardian to contact the
voluntary organisations to discuss this question… I think that…
2. L: ja, det vore bra.
Yes, that would have been good.
3. C: mhm…
4. L: Jag tror att det är redan så att godemannen har redan startat den…
I think that this is so already that the guardian has already started this…
5. C:Mm… Jag vet att du och godemannen har redan pratat om detta men
det är nog kanske vettigt att…
I know that you and the guardian have already talked about this but it
could be reasonable to…
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings
6.→A: Переводите !
Translate!
7.→I:Они обсуждают свои проблемы. Тебе это не обязательно знать.
Она говорит, что связатся опекуну, задание связаться с какойнибудь организацией, которая занимается поиском пропавших
людей.
They discuss their own problems. That is not necessary for you to know.
She says that they will contact, that the guardian will have an assignment
to contact some organization that deals with finding missing persons.
In this episode, the guardian, the caseworker and the lawyer are engaged in a
round of talk in Swedish. Although the minor is not a direct addressee of the talk
here, the officials discuss a matter that is highly relevant to his case, namely how
to find the boy’s father with the help of voluntary organizations. The interpreter
is silent. The boy finds this problematic and makes a direct (non-hedged) request
(turn 6) which implies that he wants to know what is going on as he asks the interpreter to translate. The interpreter contests this request explicitly by saying that
the exchange that she did not translate was a private conversation and that it was
not necessary for him to know what this talk was about (turn 7). This seems to be
her attempt to save face (Goffman 1981) as she is being accused by the boy of not
doing her job. She seems to position herself in the role of an adult expert and a
gatekeeper who knows best what the boy is supposed to know.
As we have seen here, the minor’s effort to establish his rights as a full-fledged
participant was counteracted by the interpreter. When she complies with the boy’s
request (in turn 7), she does so reluctantly, providing only a fragmentary summary
rendition of the talk. The participation right of the minor to receive an interpretation of the other professionals’ talk does not seem to be self-evident to her. If
it were not for the boy’s efforts, who seems to be determined to find out what is
being talked about, his exclusion from the talk would have passed as an indirectly
approved disempowering experience.
Distorting the voice of the child
The second excerpt is from an interview with Ismail, 16 years old and smuggled
from Chechnya. Prior to this exchange, the boy was asked if he had any ID papers,
such as a passport, to prove his identity, and he tried to account for why he could
not get a passport in his home country. In the excerpt, he goes on to explain why.
(The interpreter’s Russian is faulty. We have tried to reflect the incorrect grammar
in our English version.)
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
91
92
Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
(2) (Case 20: Ismail) Participants: A= applicant (male), C= caseworker (female),
I= interpreter (female)
1. A:Мой отец был в розыске и как этот его увели… солдаты.
My father was wanted [i.e by the police/military] and as such he was taken
away by soldiers.
2. I:Min far var i rozysk och när de soldater tog min far där.
My father was in “rozysk” and when the soldiers took my father there.
3. A:Мы боялись, что мы тоже в розыске из-за него.
We were afraid that we were wanted too because of him.
4. I:Så och eftersom min far ansågs som fiende inte brottsling som fiende så
var vi rädda att de ser på oss också som fiender.
So and because my father was considered an enemy not a criminal an
enemy then we were afraid that they look upon us too as enemies.
5. C:äää vad menar du när du säger att din far var fiende?
ehrm, what do you mean when you say that your father was an enemy?
6. I:А вы что вы имеете, когда вы скажете, ваш отец был в розыске?
So you what do you have when you say your father was wanted?
7. A:У?
What?
8.→I:Что вы имеете в виду, когда вы скажете, что они думали ваш отец,
что чем занимался, что вы имеете с этим?
What do you have in mind when you say that they thought your father
that what he was doing what do you have by that?
9.→A:Это не мой отец это…
This is not my father… it´s…
10.→I:Ну как они посмотрят [på] вас как враг, или как?
Well how will they look på (sic! på “on” in Swedish) you as an enemy or
how?
11.→A:ээ да, как враг.
Ehm, yes as an enemy.
12. I:De ser på oss som fiende.
They see us as enemy.
13. C:Hur?
How?
14. A:Это не совсем мой отец. Я жил со своими кузинами это его, мой
дядя, его отец.
It isn’t exactly my father I was living with my cousins it’s his my uncle his
father.
15. I:Det är egentligen så att det inte inte min far som var men jag bodde
tillsammans med min kusin och det var hans far som var…
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings
It actually is so that it wasn’t wasn’t my father that was but I was living
together with my cousin and it was his father that was…
16. C:fiende till vem? Mot…
Enemy of whom? Against…
17. I:Они посмотрели на его как враг ээ…
They looked at him as an enemy.
18. A:Как вохабист.
As a wahhabist.
19. I:Eftersom han var havist.
Because he was “havist.”
20. A:Бандит ещё называется.
It’s called bandit as well.
21. C:Hm…
Hm…
22. I:Och så kan vissa kalla dem också banditer habister.
And then some people can call them bandits “habists”.
(11 short contributions have been omitted where the family name of the
uncle is cleared up)
23. C:eh men vi får återgå till din pappa din far han var ingen fiende?
ehm, but let’s go back to your dad, your father he wasn’t an enemy?
24. I:(Pratar samtidigt som handläggaren) он сам не был враг?
(talks simultaneously with the case officer) He wasn’t an enemy himself?
25. C:Mot regimen i Tjetjenien?
Of the regime in Chechnya?
26. I:Режима, нет?
Of the regime no?
27. A:Мой, мой отец, нет.
My, my father no.
28. I:Nej inte min far nej.
No, not my father no.
Prior to and in the beginning of this excerpt, the minor discloses the reason why
he could not get a passport in his home country. He says that the procedure of getting a passport was not an easy one and he was afraid to reveal his name because
his father was wanted by the authorities and they (he and his cousin) feared that
their name was also on a list of wanted persons (turns 1, 3). Although the boy
seems to have a good command of the Russian language (which is not his native
language), he faces certain semantic difficulties when giving explanations. The interpreter, however, has neither of the target languages as her mother tongue and
exhibits word-finding problems when delivering her rendition. She cannot find a
Swedish equivalent for “wanted” and recycles the original gloss “rozysk” at first
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
93
94 Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
(turn 2). Then she provides a self-correction involving the term “enemy” that only
partially covers the connotation of the original gloss (turn 4). Her effort to relay
the word “wanted” turns into a search that results in approximate explanations.
Her inaccurate depiction (“enemy”) is taken up by the caseworker (turn 5) as a
faithful rendition of the inconsistent original utterance, in need of clarification.
The problem is that the term “enemy” was not used by the boy, but was introduced
by the interpreter (turn 4), who seems to have been trying to save face when recycling the original gloss “wanted” provided by the minor (turn 6). Thus, the interpreter withholds the source of misunderstanding, prompting the boy to provide
additional information about his father being wanted (turn 8).
The minor delivers a self-correction. He says that the wanted man is not his
father, and then interrupts himself (turn 9). Instead of attending to this remark,
the interpreter initiates a request for confirmation, in which she prompts the minor to confirm the approximation “as an enemy” (turn 10). It is the first time this
term is used in Russian, and the attempt seems to be undertaken by the interpreter
in order to create a congruent relation between her own version and the intended
meaning of the original gloss provided by the minor. The boy confirms the suggested option, perhaps thinking that it comes from the caseworker and reflects her
understanding of the situation.
When agreed to (turn 11), this detail becomes legitimate and is forwarded by
the interpreter (turn 12) to the caseworker as a response to the original question
“What do you mean when you say that your father was an enemy?” (turn 5). It
seems that this answer is still taken by the caseworker as problematic because she
continues to pursue her line of questioning.
The inaccurate gloss that is recycled during the whole sequence (“an enemy”
turns 4, 10, 12, 16, 23) has a bearing on the construction of the circumstances
clarifying the absence of the minor’s passport as well as one of the reasons underlying the flight, namely, his uncle being wanted by the authorities (turn 1). While the
caseworker tries to substantiate her request for clarification, the interpreter keeps
asking the same question (turns 10, 16) prompting for additional clarification of
the problematic gloss which she herself had introduced. The response provided
by the minor is an elaboration as it contains a new detail about the nature of the
uncle’s problem with the authorities (turn 17). The boy specifies his uncle as a
Wahabbist (member of an Islamic movement) (turn 17) and as a bandit (turn 19),
thus giving a clue to why his uncle was wanted by the Russian military.
The term “Wahabbist” is of Middle Eastern origin and the interpreter seems
to be unacquainted with it, because she renders it simply as “habist” (turn 21). The
argumentative force of this elaborated response is lost in the process of a repair
and the clarification work initiated by the interpreter (turn 18). As we see here,
both the caseworker and the interpreter have their own share of responsibility
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings
for both the outcome of the construction of meaning and the negotiation of the
minor’s participation status. It seems that the caseworker has failed in her task as
an active listener and an authority to make the interpreter accountable for trouble
sources that could be traced to the borrowings “rozysk” and “habist” and the sidesequence talk. As a result of the interpreter’s word-finding problems, the delayed
repair work, and her collusive negotiation of meaning, the minor is hindered in his
efforts to provide an additional explanation when it is relevant.
In this excerpt we can see how an interpreter with insufficient proficiency in
both Russian and Swedish manages to influence the negotiation of meaning. Her
face-saving strategies result in loss of information, since parts of the minor’s utterances are left unattended. She delivers an edited and assimilated version of the
boy’s utterances that causes misunderstandings and calls his status as a competent
and consistent witness into question. The interpreter seems to feel free to use sidesequence talk, in effect a kind of “byplay” (Goffman 1981: 133) and a semantic
manipulation to “fake” commonality and mutuality of meaning. However, as none
of her manipulative practices (whether intended or not) are brought to light, all
inconsistencies and trouble sources seem to be attributable to the boy’s original
utterances. In the process of the meaning negotiation, the boy’s voice has been
distorted and his status as an informer challenged.
Discrediting the voice of the child
The third excerpt is from an interview with Roman, 17 years old and also smuggled into Sweden, in this case from Ukraine. The boy has requested this interview
in order to supply additional information about why he cannot return to his home
country. His credibility is at stake, however, as he has not produced any ID papers
to prove his identity or citizenship. In addition, there is information from Norway
that he had already applied for asylum there under another name. The caseworker
asks the boy to describe his hometown in detail, presumably as a way of verifying
his citizenship.
(3) (Case 17: Roman) A= applicant (male), C= caseworker (female), I=
interpreter (male).
1. C: Kan du nämna namn på några torg marknader och parker?
Could you mention names of some squares, market places, and parks?
2. I:Какие — нибудь названия в городе площадей, рынков, больших
улиц?
Any names of squares, markets, main streets in town?
3. A: Ленина,улица Конституции, улица Мира.
Lenin’s, Constitution Street, Peace Street.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
95
96 Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
4.→I: Det är ganska roligt, det är alltså, det finns i varje stad.
It is rather funny, it is it is in every city.
5.→A: Что смешного? Это такие улицы названия.. Я…
What’s funny these are streets their names I…
6.→I:Man säger 10 namn och det kan man alltså.. Det är Lenins gata, det är
Mirs gata.
One says ten names and one can do so, that is, it is Lenin’s street, it is Mir’s
street
7. C: Mm… Finns det några kända byggnader?
Mm..Are there any well-known buildings?
8. I: Какие- нибудь известные здания там есть?
Are there any well-known buildings?
9. A: Нет,нет.. есть ДК: архитектурное сооружение ххх
No, there is, there is DK (House of Culture) an architectural monument
xxx
10. I: Det finns kulturhuset, det är alltså, det är samma sak, det finns från..
There is house of culture this is also the same thing there is from..
11. A: Да городу 30 лет блин.
This city is 30 years old damn it.
12.→I:Till, till, till Moskva.. Det finns inte ställe, som var inte Kulturhuset och
Pionjär huset, och om staden är över 100 000, så det är säkert att det
finns Cirkus, där byggnaden.. Den är mycket känd och så vidare, och så
vidare.
To to to Moscow there is no such place, that is not a house of Culture, or
the House of Pioneers and if the city has more than 100 000, then it is
certain that there is a Circus, there this building is very famous. And so on,
and so forth.
The details provided by the boy and their veracity are essential for the assessment of
his true citizenship. Information that he is asked to provide can be matched with information available to the caseworker about the city in question. In this excerpt, the
interpreter positions himself as an expert on Russia without being requested to do
so. When the interpreter assumes this role, he signals that his expertise might contribute to the assessment of whether the details are true or false. In his Swedish sidetalk directed at the caseworker (turns 4, 6, 10, 12) he disqualifies the information
that has been provided by the boy. By not rendering the content of his comments,
the interpreter also leaves the boy out of this exchange. Yet, the adolescent seems to
understand at least fragments of what is being said because he makes small attempts
in Russian to challenge the interpreter’s comments made in Swedish (turns 5, 11).
By not rendering what he says to the caseworker, the interpreter assumes the
role of a gatekeeper who closes the communicative space from the boy. Hence the
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings
boy’s efforts to make himself heard are nullified. Although the caseworker cannot
follow the boy’s comments, this repair work is accessible to her as non-rendered
conversational moves.
Although the interpreter’s attempt at volunteering as an expert on Soviet matters could be seen as contributing to the scrutiny of the asylum application, his
conduct may be regarded as deviant according to the standards of interpreter
neutrality. The caseworker seems to be quite ambivalent about it. She neither discourages nor encourages the interpreter’s evaluations, and yet the latter seems to
take her minimal feedback (turn 7) as signs of approval and confirmation. The
caseworker shares responsibility with the interpreter when the boy’s status as a
“non-person” is negotiated in this sequence. The interpreter meets with no objection when he discredits the voice of the child by making evaluative comments, and
does not render them to the boy, and when he does not let the minor challenge
them.
Guiding the voice of the child
The final excerpt is taken from an interview with Andrej, who is 14 years old and
was smuggled into Sweden from Tadzhikistan. Prior to this exchange, the boy was
asked to reveal details about his origin, place of birth and circumstances of his life
back at home. His evasive and inconsistent responses seem to have raised doubts
about both his credibility and his memory skills. The state of conflict between the
minor and his stepfather prior to this sequence is described as a threat to his life
(turns 1–10).
(4) (Case 11: Andrej) A= applicant (male), C= caseworker (female), I=
interpreter (female)
1. C:Finns det nån… Är det nån anledning, en förklaring till varför han har
behandlat dig så illa, eller?
Is there any… Is there any reason, an explanation why he has treated you
so badly or?
2. I:А почему, вот есть такая какая-нибудь причина, почему он вот
так… oтносился к тебе так? Что ты делал такое не- нехорошее
чтобы… чтобы он вот так к тебе плохо относился?
But why, is there any reason, why he so treated you so? What did you do
something so ba- bad that… that made him treat you so badly?
3. A:Я не думаю это… Только работу все время бросал. Хотел отдохнуть
идти.
I don’t think that… I dropped my work all the time. Wanted to go and rest.
4.→I: Мм. То есть ты не выполнял твою работу и он злился на тебя, да?
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
97
98 Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
Mmm. That is, you did not fulfil your work and he was angry with you, is
it so?
5.→A: Да.
Yes.
6.→I: Хм… А ещё почему?
Hm… And why else?
7.→A: Было вообще.
It was in general.
8.→I:Ну приведи какие-нибудь, чтобы мы поняли, почему он на тебя
злился вот так вот.
Give something [i.e. some examples] so that we can understand why he
was angry with you like that.
9.→A: Я ему сразу же не нравился.
He disliked me immediately, you see.
10.→I: Сразу это что значит? С самого начала?
Immediately what does that mean? From the very beginning?
11.→A: Ну да.
Well yes.
12.→I:Ты же не помнишь, ты же был маленький, как ты мог ему не
нравится, eму с самого начала?
You don’t remember of course, you were little, how you could be disliked by
him from the very beginning?
13.→A: Он сам так сказал.
He said so himself.
14. C: Vad säger du…
What are you saying?
15. I:Ja, det, han… han, han bara säger såna saker som, som… behöver man
fråga därför att det, det är svårt att tolka det. Eh, han var arg på mig,
därför att ibland lämnade jag mitt arbete, och inte gjorde det färdig, så
han var arg, jättearg på mig. Och, eh, och det var massa saker, som han
inte gillade i mig. Och han sagt mig att han inte tyckte om mig från
början. Men, du var för liten, du kan inte komma ihåg att, början vad
var det han början. Men han sagt till mig förut att jag inte tyckte om dig
från början.
Yes, it’s him, him, he only says things that, that… one has to ask because
it is, it is difficult to interpret it. Eh. He was angry with me because I
sometimes left my work. Didn’t finish it, so he was angry, very angry with
me and, eh… And there were a lot of things that he didn’t like in me. And
he told me that he did not like me from the beginning. But you were too
young, you cannot remember the beginning, what was he at the beginning.
But he has said to me before that I didn’t like you from the beginning
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings 99
This type of sequence could be described as a taking over strategy because the interpreter adopts the role of an extra interviewer and keeps it for some time. While
the caseworker had previously encouraged the minor to provide information by
assuring that the secrecy would be sustained (not shown here), the interpreter additionally motivated him by defining this information as very important for the
case.
She seems to realise what serious implications the minor’s narration on this
particular subject might have for the asylum decision and, as it seems, tries hard to
guide him in a particular direction. The interpreter elaborates on the interviewer’s
question by explicitly suggesting the direction of the answer (turn 2) where she refers to “bad things” that the boy might have done to his stepfather as a possible reason for their conflict. She seems to undertake a compensatory recontextualization
work in order to facilitate the boy’s comprehension and narrative ability. However,
in her summary, she later characterizes his capacities as inadequate.
Beginning from turn 2, the interpreter keeps prompting and editing the minor’s response according to her own understanding of the “proper answer”.When
the boy refuses to take up the suggested option of “bad things” and provides another (“dropping the work”, turn 3), the interpreter takes up his response for an
elaboration. Her request for confirmation is a “candidate understanding” of the
boy’s rather short statement (“I dropped the work and he (the stepfather) became
angry with me”), and it is formulated as a tag question (turn 4). The boy provides the requested confirmation (turn 5). The interpreter then persists with her
coaching sequence (turn 6) as she still appears to find the boy’s account not good
enough. When his answer (turn 7) contains no elaboration, she provides another
initiating move (turn 8). She makes her questioning sequence more coercive by
changing the footing of her question when urging the boy to provide more examples of why his stepfather disliked him (turn 8). She refers to the interviewers’
wish to understand more (“so that we can understand”). The boy responds by a
general statement “immediately he didn’t like me” (turn 9). The interpreter continues to ask for details in a series of requests (turn 10) but gets only another minimal
response. It seems as if this answer is “not the right one”, since she challenges the
boy by questioning the logic and plausibility of his answer (turn 12). The boy then
makes reference to his stepfather as a source for his argument (turn 13). After this
monolingual side-sequence, the caseworker finally requests to be informed about
what is being said (turn 14).
This example shows that extensive facilitating resources invested by the interpreter do not necessarily enhance the minor’s ability to report in a way that the
interpreter perceives as institutionally appropriate. In addition, the interpreter’s
role as an extra interviewer seems to be tolerated by the caseworker for quite a
long time before she requests an account of what is going on. In her subsequent
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
100 Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
account the interpreter refers to the minor’s inadequacy as a communicator as the
main cause for her monolingual exchange. Her summarizing rendition becomes
an incoherent mixture of direct and indirect speech of the two different voices —
the boy’s and her own. Here too, both the caseworker and the interpreter share
responsibility for how the boy’s voice is guided and how his status as an interlocutor is negotiated.
Concluding discussion
Previous research on institutional practices has sought to show that there is a gap
between theory and practice. The main reason for this is that practices are carried
out in situ, while theories and models are general idealizations (Peräkylä & Vehviläinen 2003). In this respect, studies of real-life interaction have the potential
for revealing the real value of institutional discourses as it unfolds in social intercourse (Jingree & Finlay 2008).
Studies of asylum hearings with adults have shown that irrespective of local
variations in the settings, procedure regulations, artefacts and number of participants, there were considerable similarities in how the context, primary goals,
trouble sources and role expectations were understood. The asylum hearings were
generally characterized by distrust, explicit differences in the status and linguistic
and pragmatic competence and responsibilities of its participants (Maryns 2006).
The lack of cross-cultural understanding and receptivity did not make the content
and purpose of the encounter equally accessible to all interlocutors. Interpreters
who have been seen as indispensable participants in these settings have influenced
the interactional dynamics of the encounter by their presence and interventions
(Kälin 1985; Wadensjö 1998; Pöllabauer 2007). While these studies tackled issues
concerning status, responsibility, mutual orientation and background knowledge
of the adult participants only, the present study looked into the specificity of the
interactional dynamics in a context where the claimant is a child. Our discourse
analytic study is therefore the first attempt to shed light on the ways the asylumseeking children might be disempowered in the context of asylum hearings, especially when unskilled interpreters are involved.
The asylum-seeking children are summoned to asylum hearings in order to be
heard and, if possible, to be trusted. This is both a right and an obligation provided
to them by the Swedish legal system and the Convention on the Right of the Child.
The asylum hearings are occasions where the adolescents are expected to tell, as
accurately and truthfully as possible, about the family situation, life circumstances
and traumatic experiences that may legitimate their claims for protection. The
consistency and relevance of what the child says, as well as the style, lexical choice
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings 101
and manner in which the narration is presented, serve as important clues that
signal authenticity, and bear testimony to possible handicaps and traumatisation.
All of this then becomes a subject of deliberation for the caseworkers in preparing
their reports to the decision-makers.
Caseworkers are supposed to control the framework of this discourse. This
study shows, however, that they can overlook the potential implications of interventions initiated by the interpreters for the empowering or disempowering of
the asylum-seeking children’s participant status. As a consequence, the children
may perceive an increased asymmetry between themselves and the adults. Even
if asylum-seeking children actively monitor potentially disadvantageous actions,
the interpreters` disempowering moves is liable to affect their efforts to make their
claims heard. The degree to which asylum-seeking children actually succeed in
stating their cases is dependent on their motivation, language competence and
memory skills as well as on the adult participants’ conversational initiatives, background knowledge and attentiveness to the rights of the children. However, irrespective of these factors and of their right to be heard in asylum hearings, their
participant status may be challenged, due to the interpreters´ conversational practices, tacitly approved by caseworkers.
If interpreters or caseworkers see children as having less power and control in
asylum hearings, they may feel less constrained when investigating their asylum
claims, and may be more tolerant of each other’s role behaviour. Interpreters may,
for example, assume an educating role and try to position the child as a side participant. Caseworkers might refrain from intervening due to a tacit understanding
of asylum-seeking children as less skilled and pragmatically disadvantaged interlocutors, whose accounts need to be reformulated and even corrected. In addition,
the setting’s cross-cultural character provides space and legitimacy for interpreters
to express “expert” opinions on culturally specific issues (Kälin 1986; Barsky 1993).
This may explain why interpreters’ behaviour may be tolerated by the caseworkers
even as they put the children in disadvantaged positions.
As we have shown, the authenticity of the child’s voice may be lost when interpreters try to force the child to respond, evaluate, ratify or disqualify what he/
she says. In doing so, interpreters try to distinguish themselves not only as highcontrol participants, the ones who actually legitimize talk, but also as professionals with means of adjusting the child’s story to the institutional requirements of
formality, consistency and coherence. As we have seen, the rendered version of
the original narrative or response can be a product of extensive coordinating and
coaching work initiated by the interpreter in side-sequence talk not always transparent to the caseworker. In such cases, accounts elicited by the interpreter, might
contain details and accounts that are interpreter-influenced rather than authentic
and faithful to the minor’s version.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
102 Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
There are also cases when the interpreter-initiated meaning negotiation may
result in a considerable distortion of the child’s voice (e.g. Excerpt 2). Such an intervention might have an impact on the child’s status as a competent and credible
informer. As we have seen, this might happen when an interpreter who has inadequate proficiency in the target languages gives priority to her task as a facilitator
of interaction, sacrificing accuracy of rendition for conversational flow. This can
occasionally result in loss of information, as parts of the minor’s utterances or the
whole response sequence may be left unattended.
The excerpts in this study were drawn from only four out of twenty-six hearings, and the interpreters involved in these four cases were not authorised and obviously not fully qualified for their task. Our findings show that such unskilled interpreters should not be hired for interpreting in situations that may be perceived
as particularly stressful, demanding and challenging, such as asylum hearings with
unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Some practices of such interpreters may
indeed contribute to denying justice to speakers of foreign languages.
Acknowledgement
The research reported in this study was funded by the Swedish Council for Working Life and
Social Research. The authors are grateful to caseworkers of the Swedish Migration Board, who
provided audio tapes and willingly shared their experiences.
References
Aronsson, K. (1991). Facework and control in multi-party talk: A pediatric case study. In I.
Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf,
49–74.
Aronsson, K. & Evaldsson, A.-C. (1993). Pedagogic discourse and interaction orders. In N. Coupland & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Discourse and lifespan identity, vol. 4. Newbury Park/London: Sage Publications, 103–131.
Aronsson, K. & Cederborg, A.-C. (1993). Voice and orchestration in family therapy: On conarration in multi-party talk. Text 5 (3), 345–370.
Aronsson, K. & Cederborg, A.-C. (1996). Coming of age in family therapy talk: Perspective setting in multiparty problem formulations. Discourse Processes 21, 191–212.
Aronsson, K. & Rundström, B. (1988). Child discourse and parental control in pediatric consultations. Text 8, 159–189.
Aronsson, K. & Rundström, B. (1989). Cats, dogs, and sweets in the clinical negotiation of reality:
On politeness and coherence in pediatric discourse. Language in Society 18 (4), 483–504.
Barsky, R. F (1993). The interpreter and the Canadian Convention refugee hearing: Crossing the
potentially life-threatening boundaries between “coccode-e-eh,” “cluck-cluck”, and “ cotcot-cot”. Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 6 (2), 131–157.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
Children in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings 103
Benmaman, V. (1992). Legal interpreting: An emerging profession. Modern Language Journal
76 (4), 445–454.
Bhabha, J. (2004). Seeking asylum alone: Treatment of separated and trafficked children in need
of refugee protection. International Migration 42 (1), 141–148.
Bhabha, J. & Young, W. (1999). Not adults in miniature: Unaccompanied child asylum seekers
and the new U.S. guidelines. International Journal of Refugee Law 11 (1), 84–125.
Cederborg, A.-C. (1994). Family therapy as collaborative work. Doctoral dissertation, Linköping
University.
Cederborg, A.-C. (2004). Performing investigative interviews at the Swedish Migration Board (Migrationsverkets utredningssamtal med asylsökande barn). Stockholm: Migrationsverket.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York:
The Free Press, 295–331.
Jenkinson, J. C. ( 1993). Who shall decide? The relevance of theory and research to decisionmaking by people with an intellectual disability. Disability, Handicap and Society 8, 361–
375.
Jingree, T. & Finlay, W. M. L. (2008). “You can’t do it… it’s theory rather than practice”: Staff use
of the practice/principle rhetorical device in talk on empowering people with learning disabilities. Discourse & Society 19, 705–726.
Kälin, W. (1986). Troubled communication: Cross-cultural misunderstandings in the asylumhearing. International Migration Review 20, 230–241.
Kammarkollegiet (2004). God tolksed. Vägledning för auktoriserade tolkar. Stockholm.
Keselman, O., Cederborg, A.-C., Lamb, M. E. & Dahlström, O. (2008). Mediated communication with minors in asylum-seeking hearings. Journal of Refugee Studies 21 (1), 103–116.
Linell, P. (1990). The power of dialogue dynamics. In I. Marková & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 147–177.
Linell, P., Wadensjö, C. & Jönsson, L. (1992). Establishing communicative contact through a dialogue interpreter. In A. Grindsted & J. Wagner (Eds.), Communication for specific purposes
— Fachsprachliche Kommunikation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 125–142.
Maryns, K. (2006). The asylum speaker: Language in the Belgian asylum procedure. Manchester:
St. Jerome.
Migrationsverket (Swedish Migration Board) (2001). Barn I utlänningsärenden. Rapport från
Migrationsverket. Children in the aliens processing system: Summary report from the
Swedish Migration Board. February 2001. http.//www.iraqff.se/svenska/text/barnrappsverige.pdf (accessed 9 September 2009).
Niska, H. (2004). Community Interpreting in Sweden. A short presentation. Stockholm: Tolkoch översättarinstitutet.
Nikku, N. (1997). Informative paternalism: Studies in the ethics of promoting and predicting
health. Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University.
Peräkylä, A. & Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Conversational analysis and the professional stocks of
interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society 14, 727–750.
Pöllabauer, S. (2007). Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of saving face. In C. Wadensjö, B.
Englund Dimitrova & A.-L. Nilsson (Eds.), The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 39–52.
Roy, C. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. New York: Oxford University Press.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved
104 Olga Keselman, Ann-Christin Cederborg and Per Linell
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 54, 361–382.
SOU (Statens Offentliga Utredningar) 2004: 15 Tolkförmedling — kvalitet, registrering, tillsyn.
Stockholm.
SOU (Statens Offentliga Utredningar) 2005: 37 Tolkutbildning — nya former för nya krav.
Betänkande av Utredning om kontakttolkar. Stockholm.
Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting acquainted in conversation: A study of initial interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wadensjö, C. (1992). Interpreting as interaction: On dialogue interpreting in immigration hearings and medical encounters. Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University.
Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.
Wadensjö, C. (2008). In and off the show: Co-constructing “invisibility“ in an interpreter-mediated talk show interview. Meta 53 (1), 184–203.
Authors’ address
Olga Keselman
Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning/Swedish Institute for Disability Research
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping
Sweden.
[email protected]
About the authors
Olga Keselman is a linguist and speech therapist. Her doctoral dissertation in the Department
of Behavioural Sciences at Linköping University investigated asylum-seeking children and conditions of restricted participation in interpreter-mediated asylum hearings.
Ann-Christin Cederborg is a professor in the Department of Child and Youth Studies, Stockholm University, and the Department of Behavioural Sciences, Linköping University, with a special interest in vulnerable children and their needs. She has published papers and books about
child witnesses, asylum-seeking and neglected children. Her research focuses on how children
are understood and treated in the legal system by migration and social welfare authorities.
E-mail: [email protected]
Per Linell is professor of language and culture, with a specialization on talk-in-interaction, at
Linköping University, Sweden. For many years he was instrumental in organizing an interdisciplinary graduate school in communication studies in Linköping. He has published extensively
on professional-client communication, and on dialogical theories of human sense-making. His
recent books include The Written Language Bias in Linguistics (2005), Dialogue in Focus Groups
(2007) (with I. Marková, M. Grossen and A. Salazar Orvig) and Rethinking Language, Mind and
World Dialogically (2009).
E-mail: [email protected]
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved