Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication

Ed. by Piller, Ingrid

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.800
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.109

CiteScore 2018: 0.95

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.881
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.152

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 36, Issue 1


Negotiating narratives, accessing asylum: Evaluating language policy as multi-level practice, beliefs and management

Laura Smith-Khan
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, c/- Building C5A, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia
  • Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Building F10 Eastern Avenue, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0072


Theories of language policy increasingly emphasise focusing on the specific contexts in which language management occurs. In government settings, policy seeks to shape how individuals interact with officials. Australian asylum procedure is an area where policy aims at tight control. I examine how communication is managed in this setting, in which successful outcomes are so important. After reviewing the relevant policy documents, I explore the experiences of individual refugees and migration agents through a series of qualitative interviews. I consider the relationship between language management, beliefs and practice in this context and find that individual experiences in this setting can differ. This article demonstrates the impact of several agents in the co-construction of the refugee narrative, noting that while standardisation is institutionally valued, variation is inevitable. The findings suggest that outcomes depend on much more than just official policy.

Key: Asylum; refugee; Australia; language policy; language management; migration


  • Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT). 2012. AUSIT Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct.

  • Barnett, Michael. 2006. Mind your language – Interpreters in Australian immigration proceedings. University of Western Sydney Law Review 10(1). 109–138.Google Scholar

  • Blommaert, Jan. 2001. Investigating narrative inequality: African asylum seekers’ stories in Belgium. Discourse & Society 12. 413–449.Google Scholar

  • Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cane, Peter & Leighton McDonald. 2009. Principles of adminstrative law: Legal regulation of governance. South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cassels Johnson, David & Thomas Ricento. 2013. Conceptual and theoretical perspectives in language planning and policy: Situating the ethnography of language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2013(219). 7–21.

  • Cassels Johnson, David. 2013. Language policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Codó Olsina, Eva. 2003. The struggle for meaning: Immigration and multilingual talk in an institutional setting. Barcelona: Autonomous University of Barcelona Doctoral thesis.Google Scholar

  • Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150 (entered into force 22 April 1954).

  • Cook-Gumperz, Jenny & John J. Gumperz. 2002. Narrative accounts in gatekeeping interviews: Intercultural differences or common,misunderstandings? Language and Intercultural Communication 2(1). 25–36.Google Scholar

  • Crock, Mary & Hannah Martin. 2013. Refugee rights and the merits of appeals. University of Queensland Law Journal 32(1). 137–155.Google Scholar

  • Crock, Mary & Laurie Berg. 2011. Immigration, refugees and forced migration. Annandale, Australia: Federation Press.Google Scholar

  • Crock, Mary. 2006. Seeking asylum alone: A study of Australian law, policy and practice regarding unaccompanied and separated children. Sydney: Themis Press.Google Scholar

  • Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). 2013. Annual Report 2012–13.

  • Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). 2010. Annual Report 2009–10.

  • Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). 2011. Annual Report 2010–11.

  • Department of Immigration and Citizenship and Translating and Interpreting Service TIS. 2013. Ethics: A guide to best practice for TIS National interpreters (version 10).

  • Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIMEA). 1994–. Procedures Advice Manual (PAM 3).

  • Eades, Diana. 2013. Aboriginal ways of using English. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar

  • Fishman, Joshua A. 1972. Domains and the relationship between micro- and macrosociolinguistics. In John. J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics, 435–453. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

  • Gumperz, John. J. 1976. Social network and language shift. In Jenny Cook Gumperz & John J. Gumperz (eds.), Papers on language and context, working paper no. 46. Berkeley: Language and Behaviour Research Laboratory, University of California.Google Scholar

  • Inghilleri, Moira. 2003. Habitus, field and discourse: Interpreting as a socially situated activity. Target 15(2). 243–268.Google Scholar

  • Jacquemet, Marco. 2005. The registration interview: Restricting refugees’ narrative performances. In Mike Baynham & Anna De Fina (eds.), Dislocations/Relocations: Narratives of displacement, Vol. 6, 197–220. Manchester, UK & Northampton, USA: St. Jerome.Google Scholar

  • Jacquemet, Marco. 2009. Transcribing refugees: The entextuaization of asylum seekers’ hearings in a transidiomatic environment. Text & Talk 29(5). 525–546.Google Scholar

  • Jacquemet, Marco. 2011. Crosstalk 2.0: Asylum and communicative breakdowns. Text & Talk 31(4). 475–497.Google Scholar

  • Jacquemet, Marco. 2013. Transidioma and asylum: Grumperz’s legacy in intercultural institutional talk. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 23(3). 199–212.

  • Johnston, Alexandra M. 2008. Co-membership in immigration gatekeeping interviews: Construction, ratification and refutation. Discourse & Society 19(1). 21–41.Google Scholar

  • Maryns, Katrijn. 2004. Identifying the asylum speaker: reflections on the pitfalls of language analysis in the determination of national origin. Speech, Language and the Law 11(2). 240–260.

  • Maryns, Katrijn. 2006. The asylum speaker: Language in the Belgian asylum procedure, Vol. 7. Manchester, UK & Northampton, USA: St. Jerome.Google Scholar

  • Maryns, Katrijn. 2013. Disclosure and (re)performance of gender-based evidence in an interpreter-mediated asylum interview. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(5). 661–686.Google Scholar

  • McCarty, Teresa L. 2011a. Ethnography and language policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • McCarty, Teresa L. 2011b. Introducing ethnography and language policy. In Teresa. L McCarty (ed.), Ethnography and language policy, 1–28. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • McNamara, Tim. 2012. Language assessments as shibboleths: A postructuralist perspective. Applied Linguistics 33(5). 564–581. doi: .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Merlini, Raffaela. 2009. Seeking asylum and seeking identity in a mediated encounter: The projection of selves through discursive practices. Interpreting 11(1). 57–92.Google Scholar

  • Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

  • Migration Institute of Australia (MIA). 2011. MIA Members’ Code of Ethics and Practice.

  • Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA). 2012. Code of Conduct for registered migration agents.

  • Perera v Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. 1992 92 FCA 507.

  • Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267 (entered into force 4 October 1967).

  • Smith-Khan, Laura. 2012. Genuine improvement or paying lip service: Conquering the communication complexities in protection assessments. Migration Australia 2. 58–60.Google Scholar

  • Spolsky, Bernard. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Spolsky, Bernard. 2009. Language management. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • SZSEI v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. 2014 FCA 465.

  • Tipton, Rebecca 2008. Reflexivity and the social construction of identity in interpreter-mediated asylum interviews. The Translator 14(1). 1–19.Google Scholar

  • Zion, Deborah, Linda Briskman & Bebe Loff. 2010. Returning to history: The ethics of researching asylum-seeker health in Australia. American Journal of Bioethics 10(2). 48–56.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-03-04

Published in Print: 2017-01-01

Citation Information: Multilingua, Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 31–57, ISSN (Online) 1613-3684, ISSN (Print) 0167-8507, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0072.

Export Citation

©2017 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in