View Our Catalog

Join Our E-Mail List

What's New

Sign Language Studies

American Annals of the Deaf

Press Home

Interpreting in Legal Settings

Previous Page

Next Page


Angelelli, C. V. (2004). Revisiting the interpreter’s role: A study of conference, court, and medical interpreters in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Anker, D. E. (1991). Determining asylum claims in the United States: Executive summary of an empirical study of the adjudication of asylum claims before the Immigration Court. In H. Adelman (Ed.), Refugee policy: Canada and the United States (pp. 268–281). Toronto: York Lanes Press.

Barsky, R. F. (1996). The interpreter as intercultural agent in Convention refugee hearings. The Translator 2 (1), 45–63.

BMI et al. (Eds.). Handbuch Dolmetschen im Asylverfahren. Vienna: BMI/UNHCR/ÖVGD/ITAT.

Bot, H. (2005). Dialogue interpreting in mental health. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Chesterman, A. (1993). From “is” to “ought”: Laws, norms and strategies in translation studies. Target 5 (1), 1–20.

Diriker, E. (2004). De-/Re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fenton. S. (2004). Expressing a well-founded fear: Interpreting in convention refugee hearings. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjær & D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in translation studies (pp. 265–269). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hale, S. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Harris, B. (1990). Norms in interpretation. Target 2 (1), 115–119.

Hertog, E. (Ed.). (2003). Aequalitas. Equal access to justice across language and culture in the EU. Grotius project 2001/GRP/ 015. Antwerp: Lessius Hogeschool.

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

Inghilleri, M. (2005). Mediating zones of uncertainty: Interpreter agency, the interpreting habitus and political asylum adjudication. The Translator 11 (1), 69–85.

Kälin, W. (1986). Troubled communication: Cross-cultural misunderstandings in the asylum-hearing. International Migration Review 20 (2), 230–241.

Krainz, K., & Wintersberger, U. (2006). Das Asylverfahren in Österreich. In BMI et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Dolmetschen im Asylverfahren (pp. 20–28). Vienna: BMI/UNHCR/ÖVGD/ITAT.

Maryns. K. (2006). The asylum speaker. Language in the Belgian asylum procedure. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.

Maurer-Kober, B. (2004). Die aktuelle Praxis des Dolmetschens in Asylverfahren vor dem UBAS: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Vienna.

Maurer-Kober, B. (2006). Rechtlicher Rahmen der Beiziehung von DolmetscherInnen im Asylverfahren. In BMI et al. (Eds.), Handbuch Dolmetschen im Asylverfahren (pp. 18–20). Vienna: BMI/UNHCR/ÖVGD/ITAT.

Metzger, M. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Monnier, M.-A. (1995). The hidden part of asylum seekers’ interviews in Geneva, Switzerland. Journal of Refugee Studies 8 (3), 305–325.

Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.

Pöllabauer, S. (2004). Interpreting in asylum hearings: Issues of role, responsibility and power. Interpreting 6 (2), 143–180.

Pöllabauer, S. (2005). “I don’t understand your English, Miss.” Dolmetschen bei Asylanhörungen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Reischl, K. (2001). Kommunikationsbedingungen im Asylverfahren. Published doctoral dissertation, University of Bielefeld, Berlin.

Roy, C. B. (2000). Interpreting as a discourse process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scheffer, T. (2001). Asylgewährung. Eine ethnographische Verfahrensanalyse. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.

UNHCR. (1995). Interviewing applicants for refugree status (RLD 4). Retrieved December 30, 2006 from

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London: Longman.

Previous Page

Next Page