My own empirically-based research examines the relational field of interpreter-training programmes and social and legal institutions involved in the asylum process with a view to considering how far observable translational and non-translational norms and expectations influence the professional practice of interpreters.' Though it derives its data from the interpreting context, it draws considerably on current debates and developments within norms and systems theories (see, for example, Toury, 1995; Chesterman, 1997; Pym, 1998; Venuti, 1998; Hermans, 1999) which for the most part have been concerned with the translation of written texts. Despite the relevance of these theories to spoken and signed interpreting activities, both the generation and application of descriptive and system-oriented approaches have largely been restricted to translation research. Although an emergent literature has been developing in what broadly might be considered 'interpreting norms' that includes attempts to identify generalised interpreting norms (Shlesinger, 1989; Harris, 1990) and to highlight norms that appear to be operating in particular interpreting contexts (Berk-Seligson, 1990; Morris, 1995; Niska, 1995; Barsky, 1996; Gentile et al., 1996; Fenton, 1997), the application of the concept of norms in these studies has remained at a fairly descriptive level in relation to interpreter practices.

Overlapping to some extent with this literature are accounts of interpreter-mediated, micro-interactional exchanges, for which the term 'dialogue interpreting' has been applied (Wadensj?, 1998; Mason, 1999,2001; Roy, 2000). The term 'dialogue interpreting' is itself a reflection of a shift within interpreting research to view all interpreting contexts, with the exception of conference interpreting, as sharing a similar interpersonal, communicative structure. The term suggests a view of interpreted events as at least three-way exchanges, involving hierarchically arranged configurations of power, in which significant communicative shifts in the interpreter's participatory role occur. The growing body of literature that falls into this category derives its data from the spontaneous, 'face-to-face', spoken exchanges that constitute the interpreting event in a range of contexts. Research in this area draws on both a body of practitionerled empirical accounts of interpreting practices and on a range of social /linguistic theory concerned specifically with interactional/conversational analysis (Goffman, 1981; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Sacks et al., 1974) and socio-textual practices (Halliday, 1978; Hatim & Mason, 1997). It focuses primarily on detailing misunderstandings and mis-translations vis-a-vis situated outcomes through close analysis of actual texts. The interpreted text is viewed as both generating and being generated from the social contexts of its occurrence, and interpreters are viewed as actively involved in the development and outcome of micro-level exchanges.

The close textual analysis of interpreting processes conducted within this research has importantly called attention to the constraints found within specific interpreting contexts linked to issues of power and ideology manifested in the encounter. These micro-textual approaches thus share with norm theory a recognition that translational activity, whatever its form, includes a sociological, ideological and historical dimension. The focus, however, remains primarily on the pragmatic and/or semiotic constraints on discursive practices. The starting point of analysis is the participant frame of the interpreted event itself - what Goffman (1983) referred to as the 'interaction order' to characterise social encounters as partially bounded domains whose communicative structures involve shifts in 'footing' that are determined principally by the demands of the situation of co-presence.