This article explores the state's control not only at national borders but also at the boundaries of language, culture-specific terms and legal jargon, by scrutinising how court participants are both listened to and interpreted in legal proceedings. Based on participant observation in Slovakian asylum court hearings and pre- and post-trial ethnographic interviews with asylum applicants, attorneys, interpreters and state officials, this study examines: (1) how ‘communicative space’ is established and negotiated in asylum court hearings; (2) how this space relates to the plausibility during evidence-making and (3) how Diego Velázquez's painting Las Meninas offers explanatory power for understanding dynamics in legal settings. By drawing on the work of ethnographers, philosophers, socio-legal and art theorists, this article provides new insights into the role of communicative space in plausibility assessments.
AugéM (1995) Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London: Verso.
2.
AustinJL (1975) How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.
3.
Berk-SeligsonS (2016) Totality of circumstances and translating the Miranda warnings. In: EhrlichSEadesDAinsworthJ (eds) Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 241–263.
4.
BeyerJ (2023) Rethinking Community in Myanmar: Practices of We-Formation among Muslims and Hindus in Urban Yangon. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
5.
BlommaertJ (2009) Language, asylum and the national order. Current Anthropology50(4): 415–441.
6.
BourdieuP (1987) The force of law: toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal,38: 814–853.
7.
BourdieuP (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
8.
EadesD (2008) Courtroom Talk and Neocolonial Control. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
9.
EadesD (2016) Erasing context in the courtroom construal of consent. In: EhrlichSEadesDAinsworthJ (eds) Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 71–92.
FassinD (2013) The precarious truth of asylum. Public Culture25(1): 39–63.
12.
FoucaultM (2005) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Routledge.
13.
FrickerM (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
GibbR (2019) Communicative practices and contexts of interaction in the refugee Status determination process in France. In: GillNGoodA (eds) Asylum Determination in Europe. Ethnographic Perspectives. UK: Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies, 155–164.
15.
GibsonJJ, BarrettL (2011) Beyond the Brain. How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 95–111.
16.
GillNAllsoppJBurridgeA, et al. (2021) The tribunal atmosphere: on qualitative barriers to access to justice. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences119: 61–61.
17.
GillNGoodA (2019) Asylum Determination in Europe. Ethnographic Perspectives. UK: Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies.
18.
GoffmanE (1986) Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
19.
GoodA (2007) Anthropology and Expertise in the Asylum Courts. New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
20.
GriffithsM (2021) Interrogating time and temporality in migration governance. In: CarmelELennerKPaulR (eds) Handbook on the Governance and Politics of Migration. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 316–328.
21.
HlinčíkováMSekulováM (2019) Globe in Motion 2: Multiple Shades of Migration: Regional Perspectives. Bratislava: Institute of Ethnology and Social Anthropology SAS.
22.
HoldenL (2022) Anthropologists as experts: cultural expertise, colonialism, and positionality. Law & Social Inquiry47(2): 669–690.
23.
InghilleriM (2005) Mediating zones of uncertainty. The Translator11(1): 69–85.
24.
JacobsMMarynsK (2023) Mediated disclosure in asylum encounters. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication42(2): 165–189.
25.
JohannessonL (2023) The symbolic life of courts: how judicial language, actions, and objects legitimize credibility assessments of asylum appeals. Journal of International Migration and Integration24(Suppl 4): 791–809.
26.
KnightCLewisJ (2017) Wild voices: mimicry, reversal, metaphor, and the emergence of language. Current Anthropology58(4): 435–453.
27.
KobelinskyC (2015) In search of truth: how asylum applications are adjudicated. In: FassinD (ed.) At the Heart of the State. The Moral World of Institutions. London: Pluto Press, 67–92.
28.
LatourB (2010) The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil d’État. Cambridge: Polity Press.
29.
Lipovec ČebronUŠkrabanJ (2022) Intercultural mediation and its conflicting allegiances in Slovenia. Ethnologia Europaea52(2): 1–23.
30.
Low SM (2009) Towards an anthropological theory of space and place. Semiotica175: 21–37.
31.
MäättäSKPuumalaEYlikomiR (2021) Linguistic, psychological and epistemic vulnerability in asylum procedures: an interdisciplinary approach. Discourse Studies23(1): 46–66.
32.
MarynsK (2006) The Asylum Speaker. Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. Manchester: St. Jerome.
33.
MarynsKBlommaertJ (2002) Pretextuality and pretextual gaps: on de/refining linguistic inequality. Pragmatics12(1): 11–30.
34.
MulcahyL (2007) Architects of justice: the politics of courtroom design. Social & Legal Studies16(3): 383–403.
35.
NikolaidouZRehnbergHSWadensjöC (2022) ‘Do I have to say exactly word by word?’ (Re)producing and negotiating asymmetrical relations in asylum interviews. Journal of International Migration and Integration24(4): 745–768.
36.
PavlenkoA (2017) Do you wish to waive your rights? Emotions and decision-making in multilingual speakers. Opinion in Psychology17: 74–78.
37.
RoseLGiven-WilsonZ (2021) “What is truth?” negotiating christian convert asylum Seekers’ credibility. Annals of the AAPSS697: 221–235.
38.
RuggiuI (2019) Culture and the Judiciary: The Anthropologist Judge. London: Routledge.
39.
RycroftR (2005) Communicative barriers in the asylum account. In: ShahP (ed.) The Challenge of Asylum to Legal Systems. London: Cavendish Publishing, 223–244.
40.
ŠkopM (2020) Narratives as the cultural context of law. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law33(1): 101–111.
41.
Smith-KhanL (2020) Why refugee visa credibility assessments lack credibility: a critical discourse analysis. Griffith Law Review28(4): 406–430.
42.
SpottiM (2019) “It’s all about naming things right”: the paradox of web truths in the Belgian asylum-seeking procedure. In: GillNGoodA (eds) Asylum Determination in Europe. Ethnographic Perspectives. UK: Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies, 69–90.
43.
ŠvedaPŠtefkováM (2023) Crisis management: developing PSIT structures for Ukrainian displaced persons in Slovakia. FITISPos10(1): 85–98.
44.
TomaselloM (2008) Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.
45.
TužinskáH (2019) Doing things with questions. Interpreting in Asylum Settings. Lud103(1): 81–99.
TužinskáH (2023) Interpreters as cultural experts? Asylum practices in Slovakia. In Cultural Expertise and Litigation: Practices in South Asia and Europe. Jindal Global Law Review14: 241–257.
48.
WadensjöCRehnbergHSNikolaidouZ (2023) Managing a discourse of reporting: the complex composing of an asylum narrative. Multilingua. Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication42(2): 191–213.
