37 ARTICLES
In the Limelight?  
Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting
ABSTRACT
This paper explores photographs that were taken along the Austrian and Slovene border 
between 2015 and 2018 as ethnographic records of a specific field of interpreting. The 
photographs show interpreters who helped bridge communication barriers in situations when 
the mass displacement of refugees from the Middle East resulted in an increased demand 
for interpreters for a range of languages that had previously not been as sought after. The 
photographs come from a corpus of pictures and accompanying texts that were compiled 
through a picture search in digital media. Drawing on the constructs of (in)visibility and 
bodily semiotics, a set of chosen examples is analysed qualitatively, using a visually oriented 
approach to examine interpreters’ positionality and agency in transborder humanitarian 
interpreting. The results suggest a high degree of interactional agency and visibility, but less 
social visibility.
Keywords: public service interpreting, humanitarian interpreting, visual analysis, interpreter 
agency, visibility
V središču pozornosti?  
Vidnost tolmačev in tolmačk pri čezmejnem tolmačenju
IZVLEČEK
V prispevku analiziramo fotografije, posnete vzdolž avstrijske in slovenske meje v letih od 
2015 do 2018, ki predstavljajo etnografski posnetek specifičnega tolmaškega okolja v zelo 
raznolikem kontekstu institucionalne in humanitarne interakcije. Na posnetkih so prikazani 
tolmači in tolmačke, ki so pomagali premagovati komunikacijske ovire v času, ko se je zaradi 
obsežnejših begunskih migracij iz Srednjega Vzhoda povečalo povpraševanje po tolmačenju 
v različnih situacijah ob in na nacionalnih mejah za najrazličnejše jezike, po katerih pred tem 
ni bilo povpraševanja. Fotografije izvirajo iz korpusa fotografij in pripadajočih besedil, ki 
smo ga sestavili z iskanjem fotografij v digitalnih medijih. Na podlagi koncepta (ne)vidnosti 
in semiotike telesa v prispevku kvalitativno analiziramo nekaj izbranih fotografij z uporabo 
vizualno-naravnanega pristopa, kar omogoča proučitev pozicionalnosti in angažiranosti 
tolmačev in tolmačk v okolju čezmejnega humanitarnega tolmačenja. Rezultati pričajo o 
visoki stopnji angažiranosti in vidnosti v interakciji ter o nižji stopnji socialne vidnosti. 
Ključne besede: tolmačenje za potrebe skupnosti, humanitarno tolmačenje, vizualna analiza, 
tolmaška angažiranost, vidnost
2021, Vol. 18 (1), 37-54(222)
revije.ff.uni-lj.si/elope
https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.18.1.37-54
UDC: 81'253:341.43
Aleksandra Nuč
University of Maribor, Slovenia
Sonja Pöllabauer
University of Vienna, Austria

38 A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting
1 Introduction 
A UNHCR handbook on training interpreters in asylum proceedings (UNHRC 2015, 2018) 
includes a quotation from a non-trained interpreter on its title page: “It is a fiction that I am 
neutral and invisible.” This remark addresses two multi-faceted concepts that are much present 
in interpreting (and translation) literature, and, as confirmed by the quotation, also among 
practitioners: neutrality and (in)visibility. The concept of visibility, which holds a prominent 
position in the extract, also forms the starting point for this contribution, which explores 
photographs that were taken along the Austrian and Slovene border between 2015 and 2018 
as ethnographic records of a specific field of interpreting in the context of institutional and 
humanitarian interaction. The photographs show individuals who supposedly helped bridge 
communication barriers. In the wake of the mass displacement of refugees from the Middle 
East, who made their way by various routes across Europe in the mid-2010s, the demand 
for interpreters increased, especially for rarer
1
 non-European languages which had not been 
in high demand before. The term interpreter as we use it in this contribution refers to what 
are called community interpreters (public services interpreters, dialogue interpreters, liaison 
interpreters), who may be either trained or untrained interpreters. The profile of interpreter 
should be distinguished from that of intercultural mediator (also mother-tongue mediator, 
cultural mediator or integration assistant), whose task is to assist and support migrants (see 
Pokorn 2020, 10–11, Pokorn et al. 2020, and Pokorn and Mikoli č Južnič 2020 for a more 
detailed outline of these occupational profiles). 
Our countries, Austria and Slovenia, which have one joint border that lies along the 
Western Balkans route, also had to cope with increased demand for interpreting. It was 
our impression in the wake of these developments that it was not only language barriers 
(see Federici 2020) and the often-urgent need for interpreters that were more present in 
the media than before, but that interpreters were also more often shown in photographs 
and thus were literally more visible. It is not our intent to quantify this impression, and 
neither would our corpus allow for such an assessment, but we take Fernández-Ocampo 
and Wolf’s (2014a, 72) suggestion that photographs are an “ethnographic record” of a 
field, as a starting point to discuss interpreters’ visual and visible positionality in the specific 
field of transborder interpreting.
2
 We use the concept of visibility to analyse photographs 
of interpreters in action in close vicinity to the Austrian-Slovene border between 2015 
and 2018 (border control stations, reception centres) to take a glimpse into interpreting 
practice. Our overarching research question is what photographs such as those chosen for 
this contribution may tell us about the tangible physical visibility, positionality and agency 
of interpreters/mediators in such specific situations. Based on what can be gleaned from a 
1
In interpreting literature, languages that are not much sought-after in terms of the market are often referred to as 
languages of limited diffusion, or, in a less neutral register, as exotic or migrant/refugee languages. This labelling, 
however, depends on the user’s perspective: in an interpreting context, a language that is rare in one country may have 
a large number of speakers in other environments, which also holds true for some of the languages that were in high 
demand in the situations shown in the photographic examples we use (e.g., Dari, Farsi and Arabic).
2
The “ pictorial turn”, as it was coined by Mitchell (1992), brought about a reorientation towards visual analysis. 
A number of authors have adopted such approaches in interpreting studies, but there does not yet seem to exist 
an agreed analytical or methodological framework for conducting such visually oriented analyses (see for instance 
Fernández-Ocampo and Wolf 2014b; Zimányi 2015; Baigorri-Jalón 2016; Torresi 2017).
A. Lerc Nuč, S. 
Pöllabauer

39 ARTICLES
review of the public service interpreting (PSI) literature, we hypothesize that interpreters 
are physically visible in many of the photographs and that the photographs will show 
instances of open agency and involvement.
Photographs can play an important role in addressing dimensions of visibility because 
they generate meaning “on a non-linguistic level” (Breckner 2010, 107; our translation
3
) 
and “add something to the world, a visible object of a view which would not exist without 
this picture or these kinds of pictures” (Breckner 2010, 107). Photographs, as objects of 
study, allow for a specific perspective, which can only be consciously perceived after close 
and “reflexive attention” (Breckner 2010, 94). This conscious perception results in social 
visibility and, theoretically, increased social recognition. Following Brighenti, recognition 
is a form of social visibility that may also have important consequences for the relationship 
between a minority group and a majority (2007, 329), which seems particularly relevant 
for a field like PSI, where one party in an interpreter-mediated encounter belongs to a 
marginalized clientele, often the “losers of globalisation” (Prunč 2017, 25), with low social, 
economic and cultural status, while the other (institutional) party often has a higher status 
as a member of the majority group, and where interpreters, who may also have a minority 
background, may “fall prey to this powerlessness” (Prunč 2017, 25). 
Visibility is also an important social category that is shaped by information and communication 
technologies:
[...] As communication technologies enlarge the field of the socially visible, visibility 
becomes a supply and demand market. At any enlargement of the field, the question 
arises of what is worth being seen at which price – along with the normative question 
of what should and what should not be seen. These questions are never simply a 
technical matter: they are inherently practical and political. (Brighenti 2007, 327)
This practical and political dimension of visibility is also closely linked, though not in a linear 
fashion, with various dimensions of social recognition: “[t]hresholds of visibility come into 
play here: there is a minimum and a maximum of what we may call ‘fair visibility’ – regardless 
of the fairness criteria we want to adopt. Below the lower threshold, you are socially excluded” 
(Brighenti 2007, 329–30). Once an individual enters the upper zone of fair visibility, however, 
they are in a zone of “supra-visibility, or super-visibility, where everything you do becomes 
gigantic” (Brighenti 2007, 331). The social visibility of an individual or a group of people 
can thus be lowered or increased through visual addressing, which makes photographs an 
interesting tool for studying a specific field.
We will outline the geopolitical background of the context in which the photographs we 
analyse were taken, before discussing various dimensions of interpreter visibility, which will 
be used for our analysis of a sample of four photographs from our corpus. Corpus compilation 
and our methodological approach are described in section 4, which is followed by our analysis 
of the chosen set of photographs.
3
All quotations fr om German-language publications are the authors’ translations unless otherwise specified.

40 A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting
2 Geopolitical Context and Research Coverage
What has negatively been portrayed as the European refugee crisis in the mass media is a 
situation that started around 2013 and peaked in 2015/2016, where large groups of refugees 
of varied origin travelled by many routes and across various states in the Near East and 
Europe to reach destination countries in Europe, a movement which tested European 
reception and asylum systems (UNHCR 2016, 34). The major source countries for arrivals 
in the Mediterranean in 2015 were Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq (UNHCR 2016, 35). In 
peak times, the groups of people on their way towards the north were so numerous that 
many countries no longer saw fit to impose any kind of border controls, and large groups 
crossed the borders between countries unimpeded. After governments tried to regain control 
by stepping up border controls and setting up fences and temporary camps to steer these 
movements and restrict access, the situation often still remained challenging for some time, 
with transit camps and fenced-off areas, for instance at the major border crossing between 
Austria and Slovenia, Spielfeld/Šentilj. Management was often sustained only through the 
help of volunteers and humanitarian organizations (Mokre 2015), and communication 
barriers were also often bridged through the help of volunteer translators/interpreters. Studies 
on the role of interpreters in these contexts are scarce
4
. From what little is known, many of 
these volunteer interpreters were highly committed and driven by the need to help (see, 
for instance, Wagner 2017), though media reports also indicated cases of mismanagement 
where interpreters were given considerable leeway (Mokre 2015, 29–44; Pišek and Šučur 
2016). Since then, many countries have closed off their borders and established stronger 
control, and refugees have become stranded in camps in different countries with often 
inhumane conditions.
On an international level, the literature on the positionality of interpreters in such 
transnational transit zones also remains scarce. Only a small number of contributions 
seem to have addressed issues of interpreting in relation to these more recent European 
developments in more depth (Todorova 2017; Cemerin 2019; Rudvin and Carfagnini 
2020; Todorova 2020; also see Declercq and Federici 2019).
5
 Besides, organizations such 
as Translators without Borders (2017 a, b) have also addressed the topic and prepared 
“field guides” for “humanitarian interpreting and cultural mediation” (for a critical review 
of volunteerism and activism in this context, see Piróth and Baker 2019). The kind of 
interpreting that takes place in such transnational conflict situations has produced a 
number of new labels, such as “interpreting in conflict zones” (Ruiz 2020), “humanitarian 
interpreting” (Delgado-Luchner and Kherbiche 2018), or “shuttle interpreting” (T odorova 
2017); the demarcation lines between these still seem to be hazy, however, and, depending 
on the concrete situation, the field shows parallels to fields of extra-court legal interpreting, 
such as asylum interpreting. 
4
Ther e are a small number of studies dealing with communication problems arising from the mass displacement of 
refugees from a Slovene perspective, focusing, e.g., on mediation strategies used by migrants (Pokorn and Čibej 
2018a, 308–27), commonly used communication strategies of asylum seekers (Pokorn and Čibej 2018b, 288–307) 
and community interpreting in various settings (Morel and Gorjanc 2016).
5
For studies on an extra-European context, see for instance, Delgado-Luchner and Kherbiche (2018) on Kenya, or 
Wallace and Hernandez (2017) on the situation along the T exan border.

41 ARTICLES
3 Dimensions of Interpreter Visibility
We will study interpreters’ visibility on three levels. Our first dimension of visibility will 
be interpreters’ tangible physical visibility, and how this category is discernible in the 
photographs we use as examples. Secondly, we will address visibility as an interaction-
related category to take a look at what the photographs in our corpus may tell us about the 
degree of interpreter “agency” (Kinnunen and Koskinen 2010). For this, we will make use 
of Kalverkämper’s (2008) observations on bodily semiotics and his typology of different 
types of bodily communication and posture used by interpreters. Our third dimension will 
address interpreters’ social visibility and recognition.
3.1 Physical Visibility
A first dimension of visibility is interpreters’ concrete physical visibility, which is particularly 
tangible in the field of PSI, where there is often little distance, at least in face-to-face 
interpreting,
6
 between interactants. When taking a first look at interpreters in photographs, 
the initial step will be to ascertain who is who: who of those framed in a photograph are 
interpreters, what are their relations to other individuals shown, and how is their supposed 
function signalled to users? We assume that in spite, or perhaps because, of the chaotic 
situations in which interpreters had to work in the examples we use, they will have made 
use of or been given some kind of external signage (vests, badges or signs) to make them 
distinguishable from others.
3.2 Interactional Visibility
The introductory quotation is multi-faceted in that it mixes two complex concepts, and 
it may remind readers of Metzger’s (1999) deconstruction of the “myth of neutrality”: It 
links the concept of neutrality, as a central tenet of codes of ethics and a maxim that is 
also conveyed in interpreter education, to the concept of visibility. Neutrality, in its literal 
sense, means that interpreters should not take sides but should be impartial, although 
as Harrington holds (2004, 110), from a more linguistic perspective, “it can be used to 
describe the extent to which an interpreter might remain faithful to the content and form 
of each utterance” and can thus be linked to the old debate about faithful or free translation 
and the bon mot of “traduttore – traditore”. Recently, the construct of impartiality has been 
expanded to concepts such as “multipartiality” (Kadrić in print), which seek to underline 
that interpreters have an equal responsibility towards all primary participants, even though, 
as convincing as this may seem, examples from the field of PSI suggest that this will not always 
be feasible for moral/ethical reasons (Pöllabauer and T opolovec 2020). (In)visibility, with a 
focus on interpreting, has been linked to the role and the degree of agency interpreters have 
and perform in a given situation. As a metaphor, invisibility has been used if interpreters 
are viewed as mere “conduits” (Roy 1993) and mechanistic language converters, a view 
that has been particularly prominent, and sometimes vociferously supported, in conference 
interpreting (Angelelli 2004b, 20), where interpreters are viewed as invisible as long as they 
produce “fluent”, elegant renditions and become visible only if they intervene (T orikai 2009, 
6
The situation is differ ent in distance interpreting, yet issues of physical visibility are equally important.

42
158). The fact that, for instance in monological situations such a simultaneous conference 
interpreting, interpreters in their booths are indeed invisible (or minimally visible) to 
their audience, can explain why such metaphors have come into use ( Torikai 2009, 158) 
and are still popular among some representatives of this faction (Angelelli 2004b, 79), 
though more recent studies have shown that conference interpreters also view themselves 
more broadly as “facilitators of communicatio n” or “intermediaries” (Zwischenberger 
2009, 247; see also Diriker 2004). With an increased focus on dialogical situations in 
court and in different fields of PSI, the invisibility metaphor has lost its persuasiveness, 
since interpreters are physically visible in dialogical face-to-face situations through their 
sheer presence in close proximity to the primary interactants, and occasionally heavily 
involved in situations. Starting with ground-breaking studies such as those by Wadensjö 
(1998) or Metzger (1999), many studies have since shown that interpreters in such fields 
adopt a more visible participatory role (Angelelli 2004a, 16) in explicitly and implicitly 
coordinating talk ( Wadensjö 1998, 108–10). As Martínez-Gómez claims, the maxim of 
invisibility “has […] started to be deconstructed in favour of the image of interpreters 
as active third parties who exert their agency in order to help to achieve interactional 
goals, be it through the organization of talk or by participating with their own voices” 
(2015, 189). Here the aforementioned agency concept comes into pla y, defined as the “the 
willingness and ability to act” (Kinunen and Koskinen 2010, 165). Angelelli (2004a) views 
interpreters’ agency along a “visibility continuu m”, with “minor visibility” if interpreters 
are “co-owners” of texts and “major visibility” if they are original authors and “owners of 
texts” (see also Zhan and Zeng 2017). If visibility is limited to coordinating talk ( Wadensjö 
1998), interpreters may still be impartial in that they are equally aligned with all parties. If, 
however, visibility means taking sides or advocating (Barsky 1996) on behalf of one part y, 
interpreters are no longer in a position to serve as neutral intermediaries. And in more 
extreme situations, where interpreters feel morally obliged to become involved (Camayd-
Freixas 2013), visibility may even entail the conscious decision to forfeit impartiality to 
protect the interests of the weaker part y, as advocated by some. To what degree such an 
advocacy position, where the lines between interpreting and mediation seem blurred, is 
accepted, has however, been subject to controversy (Pöllabauer 2015).
We aim to analyse how interactional visibility is reflecte d in examples from o ur c orpus and 
will use three categories of Kalverkämper ’s typology of interpreters’ bodily agency and ty pes of 
posture (2008, 107–48). Kalve rk ämper u nderlines the primacy of the “ communicative body” 
by deconstructing one of the most famous biblical se ntences: “In the be ginning , there was the 
body” (2008, 78). Based on the assu mption that nonverbal communica tion plays a central 
r ole in communication, he links aspects of visibility with “types of posture”. His category of 
the “political body”, where interpreters represent specific interests, is related to the view that 
interpreters have the power to inte rv ene, interfere, or correct (2008, 11 4). Interpreting may 
be viewed as a political act if interpreters side with one party (2008, 130). The ca tego ry of the 
“functional body”, where in his view interpreter “co -act” (2008, 131) relates to the serving 
r ole of interpreters, not in the sense of submissive service , but in the sense of functioning as 
professional intermediaries in a given situ ation between other interactants. T he prefix con- is 
used to account for the more traditional view of the role of interpreters ou tlined above, which, 
according to Kalverkämpe r, is still upheld pa rticularly by confer ence interpreters, who te nd to 
A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting

43 ARTICLES
view themselves and their bodily communication as instruments (con-actants) in a situation 
(2008, 134). Interactivity is linked with Kalverkämper’s third category of the “engaged body”, 
where interpreters engage as helping agents (2008, 146–48); in such a function, interpreters 
truly inter-act with others but may sometimes also serve as helpers and highly committed 
active agents.
3.3 Social Visibility
(In)visibility, as a concept, has also been used to indicate that in translation the influence of 
translators on text design has often been ignored or underestimated, especially if target texts 
are aligned to the target cultural conventions (“domesticated”) and are fluent translations, 
to be read as if they were originals (Venuti 2008). If translators produce translations that 
are domesticating, they are less visible, and their work, according to Venuti, also often 
finds little recognition (e.g., translators are often not even mentioned).
7
 In this sense, (in)
visibility is linked with the social recognition of translators. This dimension of visibility 
has become a central topic in critical media studies, which address the links between 
visibility and recognition and how these processes shape the granting and gaining of 
access to economic, social, and cultural resources (Thomas et al. 2017, 11). With respect 
to interpreting, visibility can also be linked to recognition: for Takeda, social recognition 
is an important facet of interpreters’ visibility and involves “seeing” the interpreter in a 
metaphoric sense: “[…] the ‘seeing’ is performed by all parties, whether present or not, and 
visibility is determined by whether these parties note the action or existence of interpreters, 
either positively or negatively” (Takeda 2014, 151). Wolf and Fernández-Ocampo (2014, 
4) also link the study of pictures from a range of war contexts with the social recognition
of interpreters in their approach to a visual perspective: “Being produced and consumed
by agents external to the interpreting profession, visual documents and representations
of interpreters cast light on the visibility of the translator. However, they also show how
interpreting overlaps with other professional and symbolic activities”. PSI is one of those
fields of interpreting where interpreters have little social recognition in the form of symbolic 
capital (Prunč 2017). It is thus interesting to study what kinds of social visibility can be
read into the examples that are studied in this contribution under section 5. In section 4,
below, we will outline our corpus and methodological approach.
4 Corpus Compilation and Methodology 
Following Brighenti’s assumption that mass media can be viewed as “high-visibility places 
endowed with the quality of conferring visibility to the people who join them” (Brighenti 
2007, 332), we decided to use the Internet as a reservoir of digital mass media to compile 
our corpus. We conducted an online search via the Google web browser
8
 in November 2020, 
with the picture search function to narrow results (only hits from the first results page 
7
Venuti relates to Schleiermacher’s view of foreignizing vs. domesticating translation strategies, though his views differ 
from Schleiermacher in that he sees foreignizing as a dissident practice that could help translators to be more visible, 
while Schleiermacher sees it as a form of enriching the target cultural codes (Prunč 2012, 311). 
8
The surprisingly high number of r esults that were yielded through a search via a widely used commercial browser such 
as Google, made us change our initial plans to subsequently expand our search to browsers that are less commercial and 
more specific picture search engines. This, however, might be a suggestion for similar projects with a broader scope.

44 A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting
were included). The results included hits from different digital media (newspapers, blogs, 
forums, journals and website text). A previously agreed set of German and Slovene search 
words (incl. truncation and Boolean operators) was used.
9
 
The following exclusion criteria were used to narrow the hits: 1) material dated before 
2013, 2) situations that are most probably not interpreting situations, and 3) material 
addressing the situation in countries other than Austria or Slovenia. Criteria to assess 
the eligibility of those records that passed the first screening were that at least one of the 
individuals shown in the photograph could be assumed to be an interpreter because of 
1) visible signs (badges, vests), 2) picture captions, 3) accompanying text, or 4) picture
content (the “situation”). Following the exclusion of records based on these exclusion
criteria, the final corpus included a total of 43 photographs, four of which were analysed
in more detail in this contribution. Two were chosen from the German records and two
from the Slovene. Our criterion for selection of this sample was that the situations shown
be as diverse as possible. The flowchart
10
 in Figure 1 documents the search process and
inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Our analysis of four examples from our corpus comprises two steps: 1) description of 
the factual context, if available at all, for the chosen photographs (date of publication, 
medium, photographer, captions and any additional information available); 2) 
description of the interpreters’ agency and alignment to other interactants as visible 
from what is shown in these photographs based on the dimensions of visibility outlined 
above. Our interpretations are complemented, if available, by information and comments 
from the co-texts in which the photographs are embedded. Formal written permission 
for the reproduction of all the photographs was obtained from the copyright holders. 
9
German search phrases: “Dolmetschen/Dolmetscher + Grenze” [interpreting/interpreter + border]; “Übersetzen/
Übersetzer + Grenze” [translation/translator + border]; “Dolmetschen/Dolmetscher + Flucht” [interpreting/
interpreter + displacement]; “Übersetzen/Übersetzer + Flucht“ [translation/translator + displacement]; “Dolmetschen/
Dolmetscher + Flüchtling(e)” [interpreter + refugee(s)]; “Übersetzen/Übersetzer + Flüchtling(e)” [translation/
translator + refugee(s)]; “Dolmetschen/Dolmetscher + Asylwerber” [interpreting/interpreter + asylum seekers]; 
Slovene search phrases: “tolmačenje/tolmač + meja” [interpreting/interpreter + border]; “prevajanje/prevajalec 
+ meja” [translation/translator + border]; “tolmačenje/tolmač + mejni prehod” [interpreting/interpreter + border
crossing]; “prevajanje/prevajalec + mejni prehod” [translation/translator + border crossing]; “tolmačenje/tolmač +
beg” [interpreting/interpreter + displacement]; “prevajanje/prevajalec + beg” [translation/translator + displacement];
“tolmačenje/tolmač + begunec/begunci” [interpreting/interpreter + refugee(s)]; “prevajanje/prevajalec + begunec/
begunci” [translation/translator + refugee(s)]; “tolmačenje/tolmač + migrant/migranti” [interpreting/interpreter +
migrant(s)]; “prevajanje/prevajalec + migrant/migranti” [translation/translator + migrant(s)]; “tolmačenje/tolmač
+ prebežnik/prebežniki” [interpreting/interpreter + fugitive(s)]; “prevajanje/prevajalec + prebežnik/prebežniki”
[translation/translator + fugitive(s)]; “tolmačenje/tolmač + prosilec za azil/prosilci za azil” [interpreting/interpreter +
applicant(s) for asylum]; “prevajanje/prevajalec + prosilec za azil/prosilci za azil” [translation/translator + applicant(s) 
for asylum]; “tolmačenje/tolmač + iskalec azila/iskalci azila” [interpreting/interpreter + asylum seeker(s)]; “prevajanje/
prevajalec + iskalec azila/iskalci azila” [translation/translator + interpreter + asylum seeker(s)]. (Owing to wording and 
the availability/frequency of synonyms, the Slovene list of terms is longer than the German.)
10
 The flo wchart (Moher et al. 2009) is an adapted version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic 
Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram that, apart from reviews and meta-analyses, may also be used for other 
types of research.

45 ARTICLES
5 Analysis: In the Limelight?
As outlined above, the focus of this analysis will lie on the physical visibility, positionality 
and agency of the individuals serving as interpreters/mediators in these photographs.
FIGURE 1. Search criteria and results. 
Our analysis of four examples from our corpus comprises two steps: 1) description of the factual context, if available 
at all, for the chosen photographs (date of publication, medium, photographer, captions and any additional 
information available); 2) description of the interpreters’ agency and alignment to other interactants as visible from 
what is shown in these photographs based on the dimensions of visibility outlined above. Our interpretations are 
complemented, if available, by information and comments from the co-texts in which the photographs are
embedded. Formal written permission for the reproduction of all the photographs was obtained from the copyright 
holders. 
5 Analysis: In the Limelight?
As outlined above, the focus of this analysis will lie on the physical visibility, positionality and agency of the 
individuals serving as interpreters/mediators in these photographs. 
Figure 1. Search criteria and results. 
IMAGE 1. Helping with registration. (© Pomurec.com)
This photograph was published on the online portal Pomurec.com on 17 October 2015 (N.N. 2015). It appeared as
part of a series of photographs that were taken in the border town of Petišovci and at the Dolga vas border crossing;
the photographer is not credited. The article describes the registration of refugees, and in connection with this the 
interpreter (the man with glasses in the black jacket and brown trousers) is briefly mentioned. His role in the 
registration process is also clear from the photograph, in which a migrant shows his document to the interpreter. 
The physical visibility of the interpreter for the migrants and other people at the location was based solely on his 
positioning; other photos published in the article indicate that officials were sitting on the other side of the table. It 
can thus be concluded that the man functioned as an interpreter between the officials and the refugees during the 
registration process. It is evident from the photograph that the interpreter was not wearing a vest with the label 
“interpreter”. The angle from which the photograph was taken does not allow viewers to determine whether he wore 
any other kind of visible external designation (e.g., a badge) indicating his function. The photograph was not given a 
caption or further commented upon; therefore, the interpreter was not clearly identifiable as such for readers of the 
online portal.
Unlike in conference interpreting at high-level political meetings, for example, where the primary interlocutors often 
exclusively maintain eye contact with one another (Kalverkämper 2008, 145), here the refugee holding the 
documents explicitly turns physically towards the interpreter. The police officer or border official, for whom the 
refugee’s statement is being interpreted, is not shown in the photograph. The aforementioned eye contact suggests
that at this point the official was not directly involved in the conversation. Instead, it can be presumed that the 
interpreter was clarifying a specific matter with the refugee, which he then (possibly) rendered for the official,
perhaps in a summarized form. Thus, in the framework of interactional visibility, the interpreter in the photograph
appears to adopt an active, engaged role, possibly also seeking to help the man with whom he speaks. In the
photographed moment, the interpreter and the migrant have eye contact exclusively with each other and are 
disregarding the official. Perhaps the interpreter also served as “principal” (Wadensjö 1998, 88), asking the refugee 
Figure 2. Helping with registration. (© Pomurec.com)
This photograph was published on the online portal Pomurec.com on 17 October 2015 
(N.N. 2015). It appeared as part of a series of photographs that were taken in the border 
town of Petišovci and at the Dolga vas border crossing; the photographer is not credited. 
The article describes the registration of refugees, and in connection with this the interpreter 
(the man with glasses in the black jacket and brown trousers) is briefly mentioned. His role 
in the registration process is also clear from the photograph, in which a migrant shows his 
document to the interpreter.

46 A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting
The physical visibility of the interpreter for the migrants and other people at the location was 
based solely on his positioning; other photos published in the article indicate that officials 
were sitting on the other side of the table. It can thus be concluded that the man functioned 
as an interpreter between the officials and the refugees during the registration process. It 
is evident from the photograph that the interpreter was not wearing a vest with the label 
“interpreter”. The angle from which the photograph was taken does not allow viewers to 
determine whether he wore any other kind of visible external designation (e.g., a badge) 
indicating his function. The photograph was not given a caption or further commented upon; 
therefore, the interpreter was not clearly identifiable as such for readers of the online portal.
Unlike in conference interpreting at high-level political meetings, for example, where the 
primary interlocutors often exclusively maintain eye contact with one another (Kalverkämper 
2008, 145), here the refugee holding the documents explicitly turns physically towards the 
interpreter. The police officer or border official, for whom the refugee’s statement is being 
interpreted, is not shown in the photograph. The aforementioned eye contact suggests that 
at this point the official was not directly involved in the conversation. Instead, it can be 
presumed that the interpreter was clarifying a specific matter with the refugee, which he then 
(possibly) rendered for the official, perhaps in a summarized form. Thus, in the framework of 
interactional visibility, the interpreter in the photograph appears to adopt an active, engaged 
role, possibly also seeking to help the man with whom he speaks. In the photographed 
moment, the interpreter and the migrant have eye contact exclusively with each other and are 
disregarding the official. Perhaps the interpreter also served as “principal” (Wadensjö 1998, 
88), asking the refugee for clarification without having been asked to do so by the official. 
Thus, the act of interpreting may also have a political dimension, which is further emphasized 
by the fact that the interpreter works while standing; a certain position of power can thus be 
ascribed to him also. The interpreter’s social visibility in this case is low. The photograph was 
not provided with any further detailed commentary, nor was it captioned.
The photograph in Figure 3 published on the Slovene online news portal 24ur.com on 21 
October 2015 (S.S., K.H. and STA 2015). It was taken at the railway station in Središče ob 
IMAGE 2. Being friendly. (© Slovenska policija)
This photograph was published on the Slovene online news portal 24ur.com on 21 October 2015 (S.S., K.H. and
STA 2015). It was taken at the railway station in Središče ob Dravi, and the Slovene police are credited as the author 
of the photograph. The photograph appears in an article along with 16 other photographs, all of which are provided 
with the caption Police officers in Središče ob Dravi.
The man in the black jacket with “Interpreter” written in white letters on it can easily be identified as the interpreter.
This ensured the interpreter's physical visibility for both the migrants and other people at the location, as well as for 
readers of the article. 
With respect to the degree of interactional agency adopted by the interpreter, the interpreter is very present and very 
visible in the centre of this photograph. He seems to be friendly or joking, although it is unclear whether with the 
police officer or the other man who stands smiling between the police officer and the interpreter, though clearly not 
with the family standing to the left of the interpreter. The hand gestures used by the interpreter and the man in the 
middle of the photograph suggest that they might be the main interactants at this precise moment. From the
interpreter’s positioning, which is a triangular, equidistant arrangement between interpreter, police official, and the 
interlocutor to the interpreter’s right, and the direction he faces, one can speculatively deduce that he is not primarily 
focused on mediating between the family to his left, who are more in the role of passive bystanders, and the official. 
From the interpreter’s posture, it is evident that he is turned solely to the police officer and the other man at the 
centre of the interactional triangle, thereby adopting the role of a “positioned interpreter” (Kalverkämper 2008, 118)
to the communication partners. The man with the two children at his left is standing aside, at a distance from the 
conversation zone, as if he were not part of the conversation. It can also be presumed that in this conversation with 
the police officer, the interpreter is trying to clarify something for the man with the two children, but his proxemic 
posture possibly indicates a hierarchical relationship and thus suggests that the interpreter is clarifying a specific 
Figure 3. Being friendly. ( © Slovenska policija)

47 ARTICLES
Dravi, and the Slovene police are credited as the author of the photograph. The photograph 
appears in an article along with 16 other photographs, all of which are provided with the 
caption Police officers in Središče ob Dravi.
The man in the black jacket with “Interpreter” written in white letters on it can easily be 
identified as the interpreter. This ensured the interpreter’s physical visibility for both the 
migrants and other people at the location, as well as for readers of the article.
With respect to the degree of interactional agency adopted by the interpreter, the interpreter 
is very present and very visible in the centre of this photograph. He seems to be friendly or 
joking, although it is unclear whether with the police officer or the other man who stands 
smiling between the police officer and the interpreter, though clearly not with the family 
standing to the left of the interpreter. The hand gestures used by the interpreter and the man in 
the middle of the photograph suggest that they might be the main interactants at this precise 
moment. From the interpreter’s positioning, which is a triangular, equidistant arrangement 
between interpreter, police official, and the interlocutor to the interpreter’s right, and the 
direction he faces, one can speculatively deduce that he is not primarily focused on mediating 
between the family to his left, who are more in the role of passive bystanders, and the official. 
From the interpreter’s posture, it is evident that he is turned solely to the police officer and the 
other man at the centre of the interactional triangle, thereby adopting the role of a “positioned 
interpreter” (Kalverkämper 2008, 118) to the communication partners. The man with the 
two children at his left is standing aside, at a distance from the conversation zone, as if he 
were not part of the conversation. It can also be presumed that in this conversation with the 
police officer, the interpreter is trying to clarify something for the man with the two children, 
but his proxemic posture possibly indicates a hierarchical relationship and thus suggests that 
the interpreter is clarifying a specific matter with the police officer without directly involving 
the migrant and his children (see also T ryuk 2017, 191, who suggests that it is unrealistic to 
expect that interpreters will not align with officials if they are positioned near them when 
interpreting). It could also be assumed that the interpreter is an official police interpreter, 
which might again have an influence on his loyalty towards his employer (police) and his 
other client(s). The interpreter in this photograph is not socially recognized in his function as 
interpreter at all: he is not mentioned, either in the text or in the caption. 
The photograph in Figure 4 was published on 04 April 2017 in the online version of the 
Austrian daily Kurier, under the heading “ Asylum and Police: 24.6 million euro for interpreters” 
(Wammerl 2017). The caption reads: “With the refugee crisis, costs for interpreters increased”; 
the photographer’s name is available if one clicks on a separate information button. The article 
itself addresses the high overall costs for interpreters in the wake of the refugee crisis, and 
very negatively links it with “crime rates among foreigners” and a “communication problem”. 
The first sentences set the tone for the remainder of the article: “The refugee crisis and a 
crime rate of almost 40% among foreigners confronts Austrian authorities with a massive 
communication problem”. The photograph was also used some time after it was presumably 
taken at the Austrian/Slovene border to illustrate what is said in this article.
The interpreter is clearly physically visible by the bright orange vest he wears, showing the 
word Translator and its Arabic translation. He is shown in interaction with a group of male 

48
persons who, for the average reader, will most probably be identifiable as foreigners through 
their physical appearance. And though the photograph does not explicitly say so, a reader 
so-inclined will most probably link the individuals shown in the photograph with the biased 
portrayal of foreign nationals that dominates the entire article. The interpreter himself is 
shown only from behind, and his physical posture is one of attentive listening. The fact that 
he seems to bury his hands in the pockets of his vest may be interpreted either as a touch of 
reserve or simply as a strategy to protect himself from the cold, since the others’ posture also 
suggests that this was a cold spring day. It appears that one man in this group of men, which 
is a small sub-group within a larger group of people that is faintly visible in the background of 
the photograph, is the main speaker, with a hand gesture that could be negatively interpreted 
as imperious. And though the interpreter does not seem to be overly active at this given 
moment, his interactional visibility is still distinct: he is shown in a group of individuals, 
possibly his fellow nationals, although this cannot be proven through the accompanying 
text, nor assumed based on his appearance, as he is shown only from behind, and he is at 
the centre of the group and attention. There is no other party visible for whom he interprets, 
so he seems to act in a production role as the principal, providing information on his own. 
The interpreter ’s social visibility and recognition are very low in this case, owing to the tone 
of the article. At the end of the text he is indirectly outed as a “lay interpreter” – which will 
most probably be the case , since there was hardly any training available for interpreters for 
languages such as Ara bic or Dari/Farsi, w hich were much neede d in the per iod when the 
photographs were taken. The text uses a quotation from a representative of the Austrian 
Court Interpreters Association to negatively juxtapose the use of lay interpreters with the 
use of court interpreter s: “The police ofte n use lay interprete rs. These are for instance taxi 
drivers with good langu age skills. But the re sponsibility is extremely hig h”. And while the use 
of lay interpreters is indeed problematic, the way this quotation is used in the text seems to 
reflect a certain degree of reservation on the part of established groups of interpreters towards 
newcomers, even if they are needed fo r specific languages when no tra ined interpreters are 
available for certain la nguage combinations.
A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting
matter with the police officer without directly involving the migrant and his children (see also Tryuk 2017, 191, who 
suggests that it is unrealistic to expect that interpreters will not align with officials if they are positioned near them
when interpreting). It could also be assumed that the interpreter is an official police interpreter, which might again 
have an influence on his loyalty towards his employer (police) and his other client(s). The interpreter in this 
photograph is not socially recognized in his function as interpreter at all: he is not mentioned, either in the text or in 
the caption. 
IMAGE 3. The translator. (© Sebastian Kahnert/dpa/picturedesk.com)
This photograph was published on 04 April 2017 in the online version of the Austrian daily Kurier, under the 
heading “Asylum and Police: 24.6 million euros for interpreters” (Wammerl 2017). The caption reads: “With the 
refugee crisis, costs for interpreters increased”; the photographer’s name is available if one clicks on a separate
information button. The article itself addresses the high overall costs for interpreters in the wake of the refugee crisis, 
and very negatively links it with “crime rates among foreigners” and a “communication problem”. The first sentences 
set the tone for the remainder of the article: “The refugee crisis and a crime rate of almost 40% among foreigners 
confronts Austrian authorities with a massive communication problem”. The photograph was also used some time 
after it was presumably taken at the Austrian/Slovene border to illustrate what is said in this article. 
The interpreter is clearly physically visible by the bright orange vest he wears, showing the word Translator and its 
Arabic translation. He is shown in interaction with a group of male persons who, for the average reader, will most 
probably be identifiable as foreigners through their physical appearance. And though the photograph does not 
explicitly say so, a reader so-inclined will most probably link the individuals shown in the photograph with the biased
portrayal of foreign nationals that dominates the entire article. The interpreter himself is shown only from behind, 
and his physical posture is one of attentive listening. The fact that he seems to bury his hands in the pockets of his 
vest may be interpreted either as a touch of reserve or simply as a strategy to protect himself from the cold, since the
others’ posture also suggests that this was a cold spring day. It appears that one man in this group of men, which is a 
small sub-group within a larger group of people that is faintly visible in the background of the photograph, is the 
main speaker, with a hand gesture that could be negatively interpreted as imperious. And though the interpreter does 
not seem to be overly active at this given moment, his interactional visibility is still distinct: he is shown in a group of 
individuals, possibly his fellow nationals, although this cannot be proven through the accompanying text, nor 
assumed based on his appearance, as he is shown only from behind, and he is at the centre of the group and 
attention. There is no other party visible for whom he interprets, so he seems to act in a production role as the 
Figure 4. The translator. (© Sebastian Kahnert/dpa/picturedesk.com)

49 ARTICLES
The photograph in Figure 5 was was published on 23 October 2015 in both the print and 
online version of an article in the Austrian daily Der Standard, together with two other 
photographs (Schmidt 2015). Both the author’s name and the photographer’s name are given.
In the photograph that was chosen as an example, the interpreter is referred to by her first 
name (Moni). She does not wear a vest or any other visible sign but is identified through 
the photograph’s caption, which says, “Interpreter Moni explains in Farsi what will happen”. 
This caption clearly identifies the woman standing in front of a group of refugees in a gym as 
the interpreter. Her role as interpreter as identifiable through this photograph is again a very 
active one: She is the one providing information to an entire group of people, who seem to 
listen attentively to what she says. Moni, who is introduced in the article as a senior citizen 
with a Farsi background, who has been living in Austria for a long time, again seems to be the 
original author of what she says; there is no other party visible whose utterances she might 
render. Her work is portrayed in a very positive manner, making her also socially visible. 
T ranslation is viewed as a means of preventing “panic”: “Retiree Moni knows how important 
translation is because ‘the people then know what happens to them and this prevents them 
from panicking’”. The article lends voice to Moni’s view of interpreting, where cultural 
explanations are described as an integral part of her task: “We explained that people here are 
friendly, that they don’t need to be afraid and that they will be taken to Vienna in buses[.]”
6 Conclusion
The analysis we present in this contribution is an attempt at describing interpreters’ physical 
visibility, agency and positionality in transborder humanitarian interpreting, based on a visual 
approach that is complemented by integrating information gleaned from accompanying co-
text(s). This approach could be expanded by extending the overall corpus (alternative search 
strings, search machines), including more examples in the analysis, and integrating additional 
Figure 5. Moni. (© Dieter Schmidt)
principal, providing information on his own. The interpreter’s social visibility and recognition are very low in this 
case, owing to the tone of the article. At the end of the text he is indirectly outed as a “lay interpreter” – which will 
most probably be the case, since there was hardly any training available for interpreters for languages such as Arabic 
or Dari/Farsi, which were much needed in the period when the photographs were taken. The text uses a quotation 
from a representative of the Austrian Court Interpreters Association to negatively juxtapose the use of lay interpreters 
with the use of court interpreters: “The police often use lay interpreters. These are for instance taxi drivers with good 
language skills. But the responsibility is extremely high”. And while the use of lay interpreters is indeed problematic, 
the way this quotation is used in the text seems to reflect a certain degree of reservation on the part of established 
groups of interpreters towards newcomers, even if they are needed for specific languages when no trained interpreters 
are available for certain language combinations. 
 
 IMAGE 4. Moni. (© Dieter Schmidt) 
 
This photograph was published on 23 October 2015 in both the print and online version of an article in the Austrian 
daily Der Standard, together with two other photographs (Schmidt 2015). Both the author’s name and the 
photographer’s name are given. 
In the photograph that was chosen as an example, the interpreter is referred to by her first name (Moni). She does 
not wear a vest or any other visible sign but is identified through the photograph’s caption, which says, “Interpreter 
Moni explains in Farsi what will happen”. This caption clearly identifies the woman standing in front of a group of 
refugees in a gym as the interpreter. Her role as interpreter as identifiable through this photograph is again a very 
active one: She is the one providing information to an entire group of people, who seem to listen attentively to what 
she says. Moni, who is introduced in the article as a senior citizen with a Farsi background, who has been living in 
Austria for a long time, again seems to be the original author of what she says; there is no other party visible whose 
utterances she might render. Her work is portrayed in a very positive manner, making her also socially visible. 

50
interdisciplinary perspe ctives for visual analysis. It might also be interesting to pay closer 
attention to the differences in the po rtra yal of interpreters in Austrian and Slovene media 
against a background of different political and soc iocultural parameter s. 
The situational and interactio nal context shown in the pho togr aphs we chose underlines 
the established fa ct that this was not an ordinary context, but that the overall circumstances 
were extraordinary and offere d specific challenges for anyone involved in these situations, 
interpreters and others. Physicall y, interpreters were more visible in a greater numbe r of 
photographs than we had or iginally expected. In this respect, it might be interesting to see 
whether their media visibility has indee d changed in view of these circumstances: just as 
many refugees were only paid a ttention and only obtained real visibility when they a rrived in 
Europe in larger numbe rs, interpreters only seem to have obtained g re ater visibility because 
of this situation and because they were suddenly needed in larger numb ers.
Their positionality as interpreters, often wrongly but typically for media reports la belled as 
translators, was indicated in the photogr aphs by visible signs such as badges or ve sts, but also 
by their prese nce and posture in a specifi c interactional space. What could also be deduced, 
not unexpectedly, from the situations shown in the photographs under revie w, was that the 
other interac tants accepted, or perhaps eve n expected, a high(er) degree of interactiona l 
agency (visibility) which see ms to support our initial hy pothesis. What we cannot deduce 
for sure from the photographs is whether the interpre ters offered their services as volunteers 
or were officially a ppointed, though, as far as we can tell from the acco mpanying texts, 
some of them will not have rec eived prior training in interpreting, though some seem to 
have had long-ter m experience. This volunteering pe rspective and interpreters’ positionality 
as volunteer-interpreters are visible in the a ctive attempt by many of the interpreters in 
these photog ra phs to help, assist and even comfort and rea ssure, as explained in so me of 
the co-texts. And even though the mediators shown in these photographs are presented as 
translators, as a common umbrella term fo r translation and interpreting, the situations in 
which they were precipitated would most probably not always have involved interpreting 
proper but rather a form of e xplaining matters to (larger) groups of individuals; if institutional 
representatives are shown, they are mostly shown in a less active, waiting position, while the 
interpreters a re at the centre of the pho tographs and apparently the attention. Yet, even 
though interpreters may have been in the limelight, at least in some of these situa tions, 
for some moments and in this se t of photographs, their age ncy and positionality are not 
comprehensively recognized, in the sense of social recognition and visibilit y, at least not 
in the small sample of photographs that was chosen for this analysis. While some of the 
accompanying te xts positivel y, and sometimes quite warmly, recognize their important 
position as mediators amidst a challenging and chaotic situation, others fa il to acknowledge 
their presence or function at a ll, even though la rge sums of money were invested in paying 
for interpreting services (Berg unde and Pöllab auer 2019, 1–2). 
There are also limitations to our approac h that we would like to address: We drew assumptions 
on a visual basis and on a dditional co-texts onl y, and cannot corroborate o ur suppositions 
about the interpreters’ ag ency or the assumed relations in the photographs, since we lack 
information on their background and biography, and on whether the y are interpreters or 
A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting

51 ARTICLES
intercultural mediators, except for what is stated in the accompanying co-texts. In some 
cases, additional research and sleuthing might turn up additional personal information; in 
other cases, it might not be possible to identify the persons in the photographs and get in 
touch with them. It might, however, be a valuable additional perspective for similar research, 
or even a follow-up study, to have interpreters retrospectively analyse their positioning and 
the associated challenges. 
In spite of these limitations, and while the corpus we have chosen for this contribution 
allows only a small glimpse into interpreting in action in a particular interactional space, 
we nonetheless think that working with pictures may help to shed light on the interactional 
agency of interpreters, and it is hoped that other studies will also attempt to address 
issues of interpreters’ positionality through a visual approach. This leaves us to conclude 
this contribution with a question that might be addressed in more depth in the future: 
If, as Brighenti holds (2007, 330), “[d]istortions in visibility lead to distortions in social 
representations”, what does this mean for the agency and positionality of interpreters?
References 
Angelelli, Claudia. 2004a. Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 
—. 2004b. Revisiting the Interpreter’s Role: A Study of Conference, Court, and Medical Interpreters in Canada, 
Mexico, and the United States. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Baigorri-Jalón, Jesús. 2016. “The Use of Photographs as Historical Sources, a Case Study. Early 
Simultaneous Interpreting at the United Nations.” In New Insights in the History of Interpreting, edited 
by Kayoko Takeda and Jesús Baigorri-Jalón, 167–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barsky, Robert F . 1996. “The Interpreter as Intercultural Agent in Convention Refugee Hearings.” The 
Translator 2 (1): 45–63. https://doi.org /10.1080/13556509.1996.10798963.
Bergunde, Annika, and Sonja Pöllabauer. 2019. “Curricular Design and Implementation of a T raining 
Course for Interpreters in an Asylum Context.” Translation and Interpreting 11 (1): 1–21.
Breckner, Roswitha. 2010. Sozialtheorie des Bildes. Zur interpretativen Analyse von Bildern und Fotografien. 
Bielefeld: T ranscript.
Brighenti, Andrea. 2007. “Visibility. A Category for the Social Sciences.” Current Sociology 55 (3): 323–42. 
https://doi.org /10.1177/0011392107076079. 
Camayd-Freixas, Erik. 2013. “Court Interpreter Ethics and the Role of Professional Organizations.” 
In Interpreting in a Changing Landscape. Selected Papers from Critical Link 6, edited by Christina 
Schäffner, Kredens Krzysztof, and Yvonne Fowler, 15–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cemerin, Vedrana. 2019. “Language Mediation in Emergency Migration Contexts: A Case Study of the 
Migrant Crisis 2015 in Croatia.” In Intercultural Crisis Communication. Translation, Interpreting and 
Languages in Local Crises, edited by Christophe Declercq and Federico M. Federici, 39–62. London: 
Bloomsbury.
Declercq, Christophe, and Federico M. Federici, eds. 2019. Intercultural Crisis Communication. Translation, 
Interpreting and Languages in Local Crises. London: Bloomsbury.
Delgado Luchner, Carmen, and Leïla Kherbiche. 2018. “Without Fear or Favour? The Positionality of 
ICRC and UNHCR Interpreters in the Humanitarian Field.” T arget 30 (3): 415–38. https://doi.org 
/10.1075/target .17108.del .
Diriker, Ebru. 2004. De-/Re-contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Federici, Federico. 2020. “‘Language barrier’ in UK newspapers 2010–2020: Figurative Meaning, 
Migration and Language Needs.” Cultus 13: 194–219.

52 A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting
Fernández-Ocampo, Anxo, and Michaela Wolf. 2014a. “Framing the Interpreter’s Wife.” In Framing the 
Interpreter. T owards a Visual Perspective, edited by Anxo Fernández-Ocampo and Michaela Wolf, 
72–82. London: Routledge.
Fernández-Ocampo, Anxo, and Michaela Wolf, eds. 2014b. Framing the Interpreter. Towards a Visual 
Perspective. London: Routledge.
Harrington, Frank J. 2004. “Book Rreviews. Melanie Metzger. Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing 
the Myth of Neutrality.” Interpreting 6 (1): 109–16.
Kadrić, Mira. [in print]. “Formung einer T ranslationskultur im DACH-Raum.” In Entwicklungslinien des 
Dolmetschens im soziokulturellen Kontext. Translationskultur(en) im DACH-Raum, edited by Sonja 
Pöllabauer and Mira Kadrić. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto. 
Kalverkämper, Hartwig. 2008. “Der kommunikative Körper in Dolmetschprozessen.” In 
Translationskultur- ein innovatives und produktives Konzept, edited by Larisa Schippel, 71–165. Berlin: 
Frank & Timme.
Kinnunen, T uija, and Kaisa Koskinen, eds. 2010. Translators’ Agency. T ampere: T ampere University Press.
Martínez-Gómez, Aída. 2015. “Invisible, Visible or Everywhere in Between? Perceptions and Actual 
Behaviours of Non-Professional Interpreters and Interpreting Users.” The Interpreters’ Newsletter 20: 
179–94.
Metzger, Melanie. 1999. Sign Language Interpreting. Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality . Washington, 
DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Mitchell, W.J. Thomas. 1992. “The Pictorial T urn.” Art Forum (March): 89–95.
Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, and Douglas G. Altman for the PRISMA Group. 
2009. “Preferred Reporting Items for S ystematic Reviews and M eta-Analyses: The PRISMA 
Statement.” PLoS Med 6 (7): e1000097. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal. pmed1000097.
Mokre, Monika. 2015. Solidarität als Übersetzung: Wien: T ransversal T exts.
Morel, Alenka, and Vojko Gorjanc. 2016. Skupnostno tolmačenje: slovenščina v medkulturni komunikaciji . 
Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete.
N. N. 2015. “Prvi begunci iz Petisovec in Dolge vasi že na poti proti Šentilju.” Pomurec.com, October 17, 
2015. https://www.pomurec. com/vsebina/35537/FOTO__Prvi _begunci_ iz_Petisovec_ in_Dolge_ vasi 
_ze_na_poti_proti_ Sentilju# 1.
Piróth, Attila, and Mona Baker. 2019. The Ethics of Volunteerism in Translation. Translators Without Borders 
and the Platform Economy. Accessed January 25, 2021. http:/ /www.pirothattila. com/Piroth- Baker_ The 
_Ethics_of_Volunteerism_ in_T ranslation. pdf.
Pišek, Mojca, and Maja Šučur. 2016. “Prevajalci med begunsko krizo: so prestopili mejo pristojnosti?” 
Dnevnik, March 17, 2016. https:/ /www.dnevnik.si/1042732054.
Pokorn, Nike K. 2020. “Introduction: Why This Book and How to Use It.” In T eacher Education for 
Community Interpreting and Intercultural Mediation: Selected Chapters, edited by Nike K. Pokorn, 
Maurizio Viezzi, and Tatjana Radanović Felberg, 6–16. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.
Pokorn, Nike K., and Tamara Mikoli č Južnič. 2020. “Community Interpreters versus Intercultural 
Mediators. Is It Really All about Ethics?” In Ethics of Non-Professional Translation and Interpreting . 
[Special Issue of Translation and Interpreting Studies 15, no. 1], edited by Esther Monzó-Nebot and 
Melissa Wallace, 80–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pokorn, Nike K., Simos Grammenidis, Anthi Wiedenmayer, Maurizio Viezzi, Caterina Falbo, Antonio 
Chiarenza, Anna Ciannameo, Tatjana Radanović Felberg, Hanne Skaaden, Uršula Lipovec 
Čebron, Juš Škraban, and Nataša Hirci. 2020. “The Profiles of a Community Interpreter and of an 
Intercultural Mediator in Greece, Italy, Norway and Slovenia.” In T eacher Education for Community 
Interpreting and Intercultural Mediation: Selected Chapters, edited by Nike K. Pokorn, Maurizio Viezzi, 
and Tatjana Radanović Felberg, 18–45. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.
Pokorn, Nike K., and Jaka Čibej. 2018a. “‘Do I Want to Learn a Language Spoken by T wo Million 
People?’ Mediation Choices by Mid-Term and Long-Term Migrants.” Language Problems and 
Language Planning 42 (3): 288–307. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/lplp .00025.pok.
—. 2018b. “‘It’s So Vital to Learn Slovene.’ Mediation Choices by Asylum Seekers in Slovenia.” Language 
Problems and Language Planning 42 (3): 307–27. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/lplp .00024.pok.

53 ARTICLES
Pöllabauer, Sonja, and Iris Topolovec. 2020. “Ethics in Public Service Interpreting.” In The Routledge 
Handbook of Translation and Ethics, edited by Kaisa Koskinen and Nike K. Pokorn, 211–26. London: 
Routledge.
Pöllabauer, Sonja. 2015. “Role.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Interpreting Studies, edited by Franz 
Pöchhacker, with Nadja Grbić, Peter Mead , and Robin Setton, 355–60. London: Routledge. 
Prunč, Erich. 2012. Entwicklungslinien der T ranslationswissenschaft. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
—. 2017. “Auf der Suche nach Aschenbrödels Schuh. Ethische Perspektiven des Kommunaldolmetschens.” 
In Interpreting Studies at the Crossroads of Disciplines, edited by Simon Zupan and Aleksandra Nuč, 
21–42. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Roy, Cynthia. 1993. “The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of 
Interpreters.” Journal of Interpretation 6 (1): 127–54.
Rudvin, Mette, and Astrid Carfagnini. 2020. “Interpreting Distress Narratives in Italian Reception 
Centres: The Need for Caution when Negotiating Empathy.” Cultus 13: 123–44.
Ruiz Rosendo, Lucía. 2020. “T ranslation and Interpreting in Conflict.” In The Oxford Handbook of 
Translation and Social Practices, edited by Meng Ji and Sara Laviosa. https://doi.org /10.1093/oxfordhb 
/9780190067205.013.24.
S.S., K.H. and STA. 2015. “Ena od begunk pri Župelevcu rodila kar na poti. V Brežicah in Dobovi okoli 
3000 novih beguncev.” 24ur.com, October 21, 2015 . https://www.24ur .com/novice/slovenija /video 
-begunci -izcrpani -kljub -mrazu -zaspali -na-tleh -pod-milim -nebom.html . 
Schmidt, Colette M. 2015. “Schreckensbilder kann ich keine teilen.” Der Standard, October 23, 2015. 
https://www.derstandard .at/story /2000024428331/stadtchef-von-wagna -schreckensbilder -kann-ich 
-keine -teilen . 
Takeda, Kayoko. 2014. “The Visibility of Collaborators. Snapshots of Wartime and Post-War Interpreters.” 
In Framing the Interpreter. Towards a Visual Perspective, edited by Anxo Fernández-Ocampo and 
Michaela Wolf, 150–59. London: Routledge. 
Thomas, Tanja, Elke Grittmann, Kaya de Wolf, and Lina Brink. 2017. “Anerkennung und Sichtbarkeit 
in gegenwärtigen Medienkulturen.” In Anerkennung und Sichtbarkeit. Perspektiven für eine kritische 
Medienkulturforschung, edited by Tanja Thomas, Lina Brink, Elke Grittmann, and Kaya de Wolff, 
11–21. Bielefeld: T ranscript.
Todorova, Marija. 2017. “Interpreting at the Border: ‘Shuttle Interpreting’ for the UNHCR.” CLINA: An 
Interdisciplinary Journal of Translation, Interpreting and Intercultural Communication 3 (2): 115–29. 
https://doi.org /10.14201/clina201732115129 .
—. 2020. “Interpreting for Refugees. Lessons Learned from the Field.” In Interpreting in Legal and 
Healthcare Settings. Perspectives on Research and Training, edited by Eva N. S. Ng and Ineke H. M. 
Crezee, 63–81. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Torikai, Kumiko. 2009. Voices of the Invisible Presence: Diplomatic Interpreters in Post-World-War II Japan. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Torresi, Ira. 2017. “Seeing Brokering in Bright Colours. Participatory Artwork Elicitation in CLB 
Research.” In Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the Art and Future of an Emerging 
Field of Research, edited by Rachele Antonini, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi, 337–57. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
T ranslators without Borders. 2017a. Research Report. Lost for Words. Improving Information Access for 
Refugees and Migrants in Greece. Accessed February 1, 2021. https://translatorswithoutborders .org /wp 
-content/uploads /2017/04/Lost-for -Words .pdf. 
—. 2017b. Research Report. Putting Language on the Map in the European Refugee Response. Accessed 
February 1, 2021. https://translatorswithoutborders .org /putting -language -on-the-map-in-the 
-european -refugee -response /. 
T ryuk, Małgorzata. 2017. “Conflict. Tension. Aggression. Ethical Issues in Interpreted Asylum Hearings 
at the Office for Foreigners in Warsaw.” In Ideology, Ethics and Policy Development in Public Service 
Interpreting and T ranslation, edited by Carmen Valero-Garcés and Rebecca Tipton, 179–94. Bristol 
Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. 
UNHCR, ed. 2015. Trainingshandbuch für DolmetscherInnen im Asylverfahren. Linz: T rauner.

54 A. Nuč, S. Pöllabauer In the Limelight?  Interpreters’ Visibility in Transborder Interpreting
—. 2018. Handbook for Interpreters in Asylum Procedures. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
UNHCR. 2016. Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2015. Geneva: UNHCR.
Venuti, Lawrence. 2008. The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman.
Wagner, David. 2017. “Dolmetschen für T rain of Hope.” MA Thesis, University of Vienna.
Wallace, Melissa, and Carlos Iván Hernández. 2017. “Language Access for Asylum Seekers in Borderland 
Detention Centers in Texas.” Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law 68: 143–56. 
https://doi.org/ 10.2436/rld. i68.2017.2940.
Wammerl, Patrick. 2017. “Asyl und Polizei: 24,6 Millionen Euro für Dolmetscher.” Kurier, April 4, 2017. 
https://kurier .at/chronik/ oesterreich/ asyl- und-polizei- 24-6-millionen- euro- fuer- dolmetscher/ 256.116 
.554.
Wolf, Michaela, and Anxo Fernández-Ocampo. 2014. “Framing the Interpreter.” In Framing the Interpreter. 
Towards a Visual Perspective, edited by Anxo Fernández-Ocampo and Michaela Wolf, 1–16. London: 
Routledge. 
Zhan, Cheng, and Lishang Zeng. 2017. “Chinese Medical Interpreters’ Visibility through Text Ownership: 
An Empirical Study on Interpreted Dialogues at a Hospital in Guangzhou.” Interpreting 19 (1): 
98–118. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/intp.19.1.05zha.
Zimányi, Krisztina. 2015. “Reflections on Interpreting Settings and Ethics in View of Visual 
Representations of la Malinche.” Translation & Interpreting 7 (2): 1–16.
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2009. “Conference Interpreters and Their Self-Representation: A Worldwide 
Web-Based Survey.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 4 (2): 239–53. https:/ /doi.org/ 10.1075/tis.4.2 
.08zwi.