The initial purpose of this study was to describe and analyse the language situation at Baragwanath Hospital. This was seen as a microcosm of the language situation in urban South Africa. As such, this study set out to identify problems and offer suggestions in resolving the difficulties experienced in communication in this hospital as well as in other medical institutions in the rest of the country. Before attempting such an investigation, a sound theoretical framework had to be established. In order to gain familiarity with the research field, concepts on sociolinguistics had to be researched and described. In order to apply particular concepts to the situation under investigation, the concepts had to be defined and interpreted first. This study has made a contribution to the theoretical debate regarding various sociolinguistic concepts, in that it has shown how these concepts apply to the South African situation. The next step in the research process involved making a decision about which method would be most appropriate for collecting data. Therefore, various approaches were investigated in order to find the appropriate one. The techniques of data collection and the recruitment of respondents had to be refined before the main data collection process could begin. Then began the journey of discovery. The detailed description of the language situation at Baragwanath Hospital presented in chapter 3 forms the crux of this study. This is the first time that such a comprehensive, qualitative description of the entire language situation in this hospital has been done. An appropriate method for data analysis had to be devised. This entailed various levels of analysis and interpretation. A description of the language situation at Baragwanath Hospital would have been incomplete without presenting a few of the various scenarios that took place in this hospital. Many important conclusions were reached during the course of the research. The most important of these were: 1. A huge communication problem exists at Baragwanath Hospital. 2. Either interpreters will have to be hired to overcome this problem; or nurses will have to be paid more for their interpreting services. / African Languages / D. Litt. et Phil.

Plus de soixante ans après son adoption, la Convention de Genève compte 145 États parties.Instrument juridique universel sur le statut des réfugiés, elle est la lex specialis du droit international desréfugiés. Qui est réfugié ? Quelle protection lui est accordée ? Ces deux questions se posent avec uneacuité certaine du fait de l’accroissement des flux migratoires, des crises multiples et de la lutte contre leterrorisme. Le contexte actuel de l’application de la Convention est différent de celui de son adoption.Rédigée par la voie de dispositions générales, elle doit être interprétée pour être appliquée. Cependant, iln’existe pas un interprète. Si les États, le Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés et laCour internationale de justice sont les interprètes officiels, ils ne sont pas les seuls. L’Office français deprotection des réfugiés et apatrides et la Cour nationale du droit d’asile jouent un rôle important et la Coureuropéenne des droits de l’homme et la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne jouent un rôle grandissant.Cette multiplicité d’interprètes peut causer une diversité d’interprétations. Or, les interprétationsdivergentes nuisent à la lisibilité et la visibilité de la Convention en tant qu’instrument de définition et deprotection des réfugiés. La présente étude est une analyse de la contribution des interprètes aux évolutionsde la Convention. Dans cette perspective, la prolifération des instruments du droit européen etinternational des droits de l’homme et la complexification des déplacements contraints de personnes sontdes paramètres incontournables, pris en compte par les interprètes, pour éclairer le sens et la portée de laConvention. / More than sixty years after its adoption, the Geneva Convention counts 145 States ascontracting Parties. This universal legal instrument on refugee’s status represents the lex specialis ofinternational refugee Law. Who can be a refugee? What can be his level of protection? These questionsare particularly relevant under the influence of the increasing population flows, the multiples crises andthe fight against terrorism. The current context of the Convention’s application is different than the one ofits adoption. And due to its general provisions, this Convention needs to be interpreted in order to beapplied. However, there is no sole interpreter. The States, the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees and the International Court of Justice are indeed the official interpreters, but not the only onesensuring this mission. Not only the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons andthe National Court of Asylum play an important role in this matter, but the European Court of HumanRights and the Court of Justice of the European Union also play an expanding role. This multiplicity ofinterpreters can induce a variety of interpretations. Nevertheless, a divergent interpretation can affect thereadability and the visibility of the Convention as a refugee defining and protective legal instrument. Thepresent study constitutes an analysis of the interpreters’ contribution to the Convention’s developments. Inthis perspective, the overgrowth of European and International Human Rights Law instrument and thecomplexity of forced migration are ineluctable feature, taken into account by the interpreters, to clarify themeaning and the scope of the Convention.