View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Captain Willard
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 251
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:15 am Post subject: Demand for Legal English in Japan. |
|
|
Any idea what the demand for legal English is in Japan?
What qualifications are required to teach it?
Possible salary range?
I assume there must be some need for proof reading contracts, etc.
Your help is appreciated!
Last edited by Captain Willard on Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 12844 Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no actual "qualification" to teach any form of English here. If an employer/client thinks you know enough about legal English (whatever you mean by that), then you may be hired. There are business English agencies in Japan (see the FAQ stickies for some) who farm out teachers to clients, and I believe they choose teachers who are best suited to teach the jargon and terminology of those clients.
Example
Got engineering background? You may be farmed out to engineers.
The courts need translators and interpreters.
I'm sure some law firms need them as well as proofreaders, too. Perhaps ask SWET what going rates they know will help.
http://www.swet.jp/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
redeyes
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 254
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, if you are coming to teach English, please refresh your knowledge of plural nouns. We don't need more corruptions of the language like "a dice", etc.
Willard wrote -- "What qualification are required to teach it?" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ryu Hayabusa
Joined: 08 Jan 2008 Posts: 182
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could easily have been a typo, redeyes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
redeyes
Joined: 21 Jun 2007 Posts: 254
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Willard is a pedantic grammar policeman -- I was actually parodying him, by quoting word for word from his very own grammar police posting on another thread. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Captain Willard
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 251
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ryu Hayabusa wrote: |
Could easily have been a typo, redeyes. |
Ah, Redeyes stated he/she had a daughter, but was requesting advice on bringing "children" into Saudi Arabia:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic.php?t=98258&start=15
My, it appears that I struck a nerve here. There is quite a difference between forgetting to type an "s", and claiming that it is possible to redefine an irregular plural noun as a singular noun, unless we are now prepared to accept that a daughter is now "a children".
There is nothing like a cyber stalker trying to hijack the thread!
Last edited by Captain Willard on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:16 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Captain Willard
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 251
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Captain does not suffer fools gladly! Clarity of expression matters in written English, and especially in legal writing. In a contract, words need to be translated precisely. That was the topic of this discussion, before the hijacking attempt with a personal attack.
C. W.
redeyes wrote: |
Willard is a pedantic grammar policeman -- I was actually parodying him, by quoting word for word from his very own grammar police posting on another thread. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003 Posts: 1373 Location: Way, way off course.
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Captain Willard wrote: |
Ryu Hayabusa wrote: |
Could easily have been a typo, redeyes. |
Ah, Redeyes stated he/she had a daughter, but was requesting advice on bringing "children" into Saudi Arabia:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic.php?t=98258&start=15
My, it appears that I struck a nerve here. There is quite a difference between forgetting to type an "s", and claiming that it is possible to redefine an irregular plural noun as a singular noun, unless we are now prepared to accept that a daughter is now "a children".
There is nothing like a cyber stalker trying to hijack the thread!
:roll: |
Wittgenstein; You're wrong. Hope that helps.
G
Everyone repeat together now: Grammars are descriptive, not prescriptive. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003 Posts: 1373 Location: Way, way off course.
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Captain Willard wrote: |
In a contract, words need to be translated precisely. That was the topic of this discussion, before the hijacking attempt with a personal attack. |
Actually, I'd disagree with that. Contracts sections and overall intent and agreement needs to be translated accurately for mutual legal understanding. Translating words often doesn't lead to that. If it did then machine transaltion would be used more often. But then, maybe you meant something other than "words" and just weren't being "exact". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Abdullah the Enforcer
Joined: 26 Aug 2012 Posts: 42 Location: In a hole
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
"machine transaltion" |
Didn't you mean "machine transaltation"? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003 Posts: 1373 Location: Way, way off course.
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Abdullah the Enforcer wrote: |
Quote: |
"machine transaltion" |
Didn't you mean "machine transaltation"? |
Oh no! A typo! It renders everything invalid and incomprehensible! I am so ashamed of a typo on an obscure low traffic website!
....oh, wait... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Abdullah the Enforcer
Joined: 26 Aug 2012 Posts: 42 Location: In a hole
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh! Abdullah guesses that you didn't mean "machine transaltation"! Bad Abdullah. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Captain Willard
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 251
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
You would if only you could.
You could not so you did not, although your choice of the subjunctive does reveal your bias.
I did not write that each �word� needs to be translated independent of its context. However, when a word is capable of two meanings it can cause problems since it can lead to differing interpretations. Such words are best avoided, or if used, must be narrowly defined to avoid ambiguity or misinterpretation. Good drafting can avoid problems later.
Lawyers use and manipulate language artfully. It is their craft. So, improperly translating a legal document could alter its intended meaning. This could be more important in a country which uses a legal code system, as opposed to a common law nation in which the judges have more discretion to interpret the law.
G Cthulhu wrote: |
Actually, I'd disagree with that. Contracts sections and overall intent and agreement needs to be translated accurately for mutual legal understanding. Translating words often doesn't lead to that. If it did then machine transaltion would be used more often. But then, maybe you meant something other than "words" and just weren't being "exact". |
The old prescriptive grammar rules of formal English were intended to foster clarity of expression, not casual conversation. They work extremely well in formal documents when clarity is needed. Colloquial English does not. Colloquial English is best avoided in a legal document.
C. W.
G Cthulhu wrote: |
Everyone repeat together now: Grammars are descriptive, not prescriptive. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pitarou
Joined: 16 Nov 2009 Posts: 1116 Location: Narita, Japan
|
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Captain Willard wrote: |
The Captain does not suffer fools gladly! Clarity of expression matters in written English, and especially in legal writing. |
Legal English is not about clarity. Legal English is about avoiding equivocation and precluding wilful misinterpretation. Totally different things.
Lawyers avoid ambiguity by using forms of words whose meanings have been established by legal precedent. To be worth his salt, a legal translator must understand the bodies of legal precedent in both legal systems.
Does this always happen in practice? Well ... I once got a job checking the English translation of a smartphone application. Quite unexpectedly, they also sent me their licence agreement. Except, they hadn't translated it. They'd just used used the automatic translator at excite.co.jp. So I just took the original Japanese text, put it through Google's translator (far superior to Excite's), tidied it up a bit, and sent it back to them with a note saying that they used this translation at their own risk. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Captain Willard
Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 251
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for an intelligent, professional response.
I posit that "avoiding equivocation and precluding willful misinterpretation" in drafting a legal document is clarity of expression. The fact that in international business translation errors or manipulations must be also considered doesn't change my opinion.
Precedent is more important in common law jurisdictions than in civil code jurisdictions, but not all words will have been used before. This is especially true of new technologies, etc.
It was very wise of you to CYA with that caveat!
Pitarou wrote: |
Legal English is not about clarity. Legal English is about avoiding equivocation and precluding wilful misinterpretation. Totally different things.
Lawyers avoid ambiguity by using forms of words whose meanings have been established by legal precedent. To be worth his salt, a legal translator must understand the bodies of legal precedent in both legal systems.
Does this always happen in practice? Well ... I once got a job checking the English translation of a smartphone application. Quite unexpectedly, they also sent me their licence agreement. Except, they hadn't translated it. They'd just used used the automatic translator at excite.co.jp. So I just took the original Japanese text, put it through Google's translator (far superior to Excite's), tidied it up a bit, and sent it back to them with a note saying that they used this translation at their own risk. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|