ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses a number of issues causing conflict such as narrative construction, entextualisation and interpretation. The sceptical approach he encounters does not reflect the liberality of policy documents on interview conduct which state that only “a low level of proof” is required to accept a claim. The chapter explores the participants’ real-life experiences of the asylum process, especially their awareness of the linguistic and cultural inequalities that led to communicative conflicts and diverging communicative goals. It draws on linguistic theories and issues identified by participants in the interviews, demonstrating how the perceptions of asylum seekers are supported by linguistic evidence. The communicative conflicts arising between interviewers and applicants are further exacerbated through preferences for different discourse modes in the institutional setting. As with communicative goals and discourse modes, institutional value judgements about the linguistic medium, either written or oral, are potential sources of prejudice in the asylum interview.
