Cover not available
Part of
Field Research on Translation and Interpreting
Edited by Regina Rogl, Daniela Schlager and Hanna Risku
[Benjamins Translation Library 165] 2025
► pp. 297–319

Chapter 13
What translation and interpreting practices do

Field research on human differentiation in a German reception centre for refugees

ORCID logo | University of Mainz
ORCID logo | University of Mainz
The aim of this chapter is to introduce a new theoretical framework for field research in translation studies. The framework is centred around the concept of ‘human differentiation’ (Hirschauer 2017; Dizdar et al. 2021). Drawing on original data gathered during field research carried out at a German reception centre for refugees, the chapter demonstrates and discusses the analytical benefits of adopting the proposed framework. By doing so, it hopes to increase the discipline’s capacity to observe what translation practices do in specific social situations — other than enable communication. The central idea is that translation also creates differences between people and that field research is particularly well suited to investigating how this occurs.
Keywords: translation practices, human differentiation, asylum seekers, interpreter recruitment, participant observation, interviews, document analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptual framework
    • 2.1Language-related human differentiation
    • 2.2The role of translation in language-based differentiation processes
      • 2.2.1Listing languages: Glottonyms
      • 2.2.2Linguistic and language-related differentiation
      • 2.2.3Translation motivating institutional categorisations
  • 3.Field research in German reception centres for asylum seekers
    • 3.1Approaching the field
    • 3.2Methodology
    • 3.3Language-related human differentiation before and for the purposes of translation: Recruiting interpreters
      • 3.3.1Recruiting interpreters in reception centre A
      • 3.3.2Recruiting interpreters in reception centre B
    • 3.4Categorisation as interpreter/translator
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (57)
References
Angelelli, Claudia V. 2004. Medical Interpreting and Cross-Cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antonini, Rachele, Cirillo Letizia, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi (eds). 2017. Non-Professional Interpreting and Translations: State of the Art and Future of an Emerging Field of Research. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2009. “Language, Asylum, and the National Order.” Current Anthropology 50 (4): 415–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes. Chronicles of Complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonfiglio, Thomas P. 2010. Mother Tongues and Nations: The Invention of the Native Speaker. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2012. Was heißt sprechen? Zur Ökonomie des sprachlichen Tausches. Translated by Hella Beister. Wien: new academic press.Google Scholar
Bourke, John F., and Rosemary Lucadou-Wells. 2016. “Interpreters, Translators and Legal Practitioners: A Perspective of Working Together for Refugee and Asylum-Seeking Clients in Australia.” Redit — Revista Electrónica de Didáctica de La Traducción y La Interpretación 2: 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowker, Geoffrey, and Susan Leigh Star. 2000. Sorting Thing Out. Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA & London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Busch, Brigitta. 2010. “…und Ihre Sprache? Über die Schwierigkeiten, eine scheinbar einfache Frage zu beantworten.” Stichproben. Wiener Zeitschrift für kritische Afrikastudien 19 (10): 9–33.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael, and Sherry Simon. 2014. “Introduction: The City as Translation Zone.” Translation Studies 7 (2): 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniyan, Femi. 2010. “Interpretation in Irish Asylum Law: Practical Problems — Real Solutions.” Community Interpreting in Ireland and Abroad, 18 (2): 127–142.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1992. “The Second Person.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 17 (1): 255–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 2003. Die Einsprachigkeit des Anderen oder die ursprüngliche Prothese. Translated by Michael Wetzel. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Dizdar, Dilek. 2019. “Translation und Grenze. Versuch einer translationswissenschaftlichen Neufiguration.” In Übersetzung. Über die Möglichkeit, Pädagogik anders zu denken, ed. by Nicolas Engel, and Stefan Köngeter, 57–74. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
. 2021. “Translation als Katalysator von Humandifferenzierung. Eine translationswissenschaftliche Bestandsaufnahme.” In Humandifferenzierung: Disziplinäre Perspektiven und empirische Sondierungen, ed. by Dilek Dizdar, Stefan Hirschauer, Johannes Paulmann, and Gabriele Schabacher, 135–159. Weilerswist: Velbrück. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dizdar, Dilek, Stefan Hirschauer, Johannes Paulmann, and Gabriele Schabacher (eds). 2021. Humandifferenzierung: Disziplinäre Perspektiven und empirische Sondierungen. Weilerswist: Velbrück. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dizdar, Dilek, and Tomasz Rozmysłowicz. 2023. “Collectivities in Translation (Studies).” Translation in Society 2 (1): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flynn, Peter. 2004. “Skopos Theory: An Ethnographic Enquiry.” Perspectives, Studies in Translatology 12 (4): 270–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flynn, Peter, and Luc van Doorslaer. 2016. “City and Migration: A Crossroads for Non-Institutionalized Translation.” European Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (1): 73–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grbić, Nadja. 2020. “Autorisierte Translator*innen und un_übersetzte Subjekte: Rekrutierungsformen des Gebärdensprachdolmetschens in der Geschichte.” In Übersetztes und Unübersetztes: Das Versprechen der Translation und ihre Schattenseiten, ed. by Nadja Grbić, Susanne Korbel, Judith Laister, Rafael Y. Schögler, Olaf Terpitz, and Michaela Wolf, 55–82. Bielefeld: transcript. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. Gebärdensprachdolmetschen als Beruf: Professionalisierung als Grenzziehungsarbeit: Eine historische Fallstudie in Österreich. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
Grbić, Nadja, and Pekka Kujamäki. 2018. “Professional vs Non-Professional? How Boundary Work Shapes Research Agendas in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” In Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, ed. by Helle V. Dam, Matilde Nisbeth Brøgger, and Karen Korning Zethsen, 113–131. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, Kristina. 2023. “The Ambiguity of Interpreting: Ethnographic Interviews with Public Service Interpreters.” In The Routledge Handbook of Public Service Interpreting, ed. by Laura Gavioli, and Cecilia Wadensjö, 32–45. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasenfeld, Yeheskel. 1972. “People Processing Organizations: An Exchange Approach.” American Sociological Review 37 (3): 256–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Jospeh C., Diane C. Lillo-Martin, and Sandra. K. Wood. 2019. Sign Languages: Structures and Contexts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hirschauer, Stefan. 2017. Un/Doing Differences: Praktiken der Humandifferenzierung. Weilerswist: Velbrück. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Menschen unterscheiden. Grundlinien einer Theorie der Humandifferenzierung.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 51 (3–4): 155–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. “Telling People Apart: Outline of a Theory of Human Differentiation.” Sociological Theory 41 (4): 352–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirschauer, Stefan, and Damaris Nübling. 2021. “Sinnschichten des Kulturellen und die Aggregatzustände der Sprache.” In Humandifferenzierung: Disziplinäre Perspektiven und empirische Sondierungen, ed. by Dilek Dizdar, Stefan Hirschauer, Johannes Paulmann, and Gabriele Schabacher, 58–83. Weilerswist: Velbrück. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iacono, Katia, Barbara Heinisch, and Sonja Pöllabauer (eds). 2024. Zwischenstationen / Inbetween. Kommunikation mit geflüchteten Menschen / Communicating with Refugees. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira. 2005. “Mediating Zones of Uncertainty: Interpreter Agency, the Interpreting Habitus and Political Asylum Adjudication.” The Translator 11 (1): 69–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, Alexandra C., and Jessica Woodroffe. 2017. “Walking Interviews.” In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, ed. by Pranee Liamputtong, 1–22. Singapore: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühl, Jana. 2016. “Walking Interviews als Methode zur Erhebung alltäglicher Raumproduktionen.” Europa Regional 23 (2): 35–48.Google Scholar
Kinnunen, Tuija. 2010. “Agency, Activity and Court Interpreting.” In Translators’ Agency, ed. by Tuija Kinnunen, and Kaisa Koskinen, 126–164. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2008. Translating Institutions. An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Tampere as a Translation Space.” Translation Studies 7 (2): 186–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kujamäki, Pekka, and Päivi Pasanen. 2019. “Interpreting Prisoners-Of-War. Sketches of a Military Translation Culture in Finnish POW Camps During World War II (1941–1944).” Chronotopos 1: 173–197.Google Scholar
Lagnado, Jacob. 2002. “Beyond Neutrality: The Translator-Interpreter and the Right to Asylum in Britain.” Íkala 7 (13): 63–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, Anne, Zhanna Dzebisova, Dmitri Karapish, Bosiljka Kovačević, Florence Ogbebor, and Ekaterina Okonkwo. 2009. “Arranging and Negotiating the Use of Informal Interpreters in General Practice Consultations: Experiences of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the West of Ireland.” Social Science & Medicine 69 (2): 210–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, Anne, Susann Huschke, Kevin Pottie, Fern R. Hauck, Kim Griswold, and Mark F. Harris. 2020. “Barriers to the Use of Trained Interpreters in Consultations with Refugees in Four Resettlement Countries: A Qualitative Analysis Using Normalisation Process Theory.” BMC Family Practice 21: 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maltby, Matthew. 2010. “Institutional Identities of Interpreters in the Asylum Application Context: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Interpreting Policies in the Voluntary Sector.” In Text and Context. Essays on Translation and Interpreting in Honour of Ian Mason, ed. by Mona Baker, María Calzada Pérez, and Maeve Olohan, 209–233. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Mokre, Monika. 2015. Solidarität als Übersetzung: Überlegungen zum Refugee Protest Camp Vienna. Wien: transversal texts.Google Scholar
Paloposki, Outi. 2016. “Translating and Translators Before the Professional Project.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 25: 15–32.Google Scholar
Pöllabauer, Sonja. 2004. “Interpreting in Asylum Hearings: Issues of Role, Responsibility and Power.” Interpreting 6 (2): 143–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “I Don’t Understand Your English, Miss”: Dolmetschen bei Asylanhörungen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2006. “‘Translation Culture’ in Interpreted Asylum Hearings.” In Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Zuzana Jettmarová, 151–162. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Interpreting in Asylum Hearings: Issues of Saving Face.” In The Critical Link 4: Professionalisation of Interpreting in the Community. Selected Papers from the 4th International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Stockholm, Sweden, 20–23 May 2004, ed. by Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova, and Anna-Lena Nilsson, 39–52. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Forschung zum Dolmetschen im Asylverfahren: Interdisziplinarität und Netzwerke.” Lebende Sprachen 53 (3): 121–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Interpreting in an Asylum Context: Interpreter Ttraining as the Linchpin for Improving Procedural Quality.” In Interpreter Training in Conflict and Post-Conflict Scenarios, ed. by Lucía Ruiz Rosendo, and Marija Todorova, 129–145. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prior, Lindsay. 2003. Using Documents in Social Research. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milosevic (eds). 2019. Translation Practice in the Field. Current Research on Socio-Cognitive Processes. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sakai, Naoki. 2018. “The Modern Regime of Translation and Its Politics.” In A History of Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, Concepts, Effects, ed. by Lieven D’hulst, and Yves Gambier, 61–74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schabacher, Gabriele. 2021. “Infrastrukturen und Verfahren der Humandifferenzierung. Medienkulturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven.” In Humandifferenzierung. Disziplinäre Perspektiven und empirische Sondierungen, ed. by Dilek Dizdar, Stefan Hirschauer, Johannes Paulmann, and Gabriele Schabacher, 287–313. Weilerswist: Velbrück. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1996. “Monoglot ‘Standard’ in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.” In The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Donald Brenneis, and Ronald K. S. Macaulay, 284–306. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Sherry. 2019. Translation Sites: A Field Guide. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Michaela. 2012. Die vielsprachige Seele Kakaniens. Übersetzen und Dolmetschen in der Habsburgermonarchie 1848 bis 1918. Wien: Böhlau.Google Scholar