ABSTRACT Whether those seeking asylum can be believed is a central concern in both public discourse and institutional processes. As a result, credibility assessments have become an important component of the latter. This article contributes to existing scholarship on credibility assessments by critically examining the discourse and related ‘language ideologies’ underlying them. The examination includes published tribunal decisions on appeals of institutional rejections of asylum-seeker applications, and the tribunal's official credibility assessment guidelines. It considers how constructions of language and diversity affect the way credibility is assessed in visa decision-making. In the application process, sole authorship of the texts produced is discursively assigned to the asylum-seekers. This discourse is problematic as it constructs credibility as attaching to them alone. However, this contradicts the sociolinguistic realities: the texts produced in this setting are institutionally controlled and result from the interaction of multiple participants. The examination also demonstrates how the essentialisation of culture and linguistic diversity can create implausibility. Institutional discourse thus creates serious challenges for applicants, who must communicate ‘credibly’ to gain protection, even though this communication and its evaluation are far from wholly within their control.

中文翻译：

---

为什么难民签证可信度评估缺乏可信度：批判性话语分析

摘要 寻求庇护者是否可信是公共话语和制度过程中的一个核心问题。因此，可信度评估已成为后者的重要组成部分。本文通过批判性地审查话语及其背后的相关“语言意识形态”，为现有的可信度评估学术做出贡献。审查包括已公布的仲裁庭关于机构拒绝寻求庇护者申请的上诉决定，以及仲裁庭的官方可信度评估指南。它考虑了语言和多样性的结构如何影响签证决策中评估可信度的方式。在申请过程中，所产生的文本的唯一作者被随意分配给寻求庇护者。这种话语是有问题的，因为它构建了仅依附于它们的可信度。然而，这与社会语言学的现实相矛盾：在这种情况下产生的文本受到制度控制，并且是多个参与者互动的结果。考试还展示了文化和语言多样性的本质化如何造成不可信。因此，机构话语给申请人带来了严峻的挑战，他们必须“可靠地”沟通才能获得保护，即使这种沟通及其评估远非他们完全控制。考试还展示了文化和语言多样性的本质化如何造成不可信。因此，机构话语给申请人带来了严峻的挑战，他们必须“可靠地”沟通才能获得保护，即使这种沟通及其评估远非他们完全控制。考试还展示了文化和语言多样性的本质化如何造成不可信。因此，机构话语给申请人带来了严峻的挑战，他们必须“可靠地”沟通才能获得保护，即使这种沟通及其评估远非他们完全控制。