Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Demand for Legal English in Japan.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Japan
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Captain Willard



Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 158

PostPosted: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:15 am    Post subject: Demand for Legal English in Japan. Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Glenski



Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
redeyes



Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 252

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Ryu Hayabusa



Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could easily have been a typo, redeyes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redeyes



Joined: 21 Jun 2007
Posts: 252

PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Willard



Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 158

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
Rolling Eyes


Last edited by Captain Willard on Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Willard



Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 158

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
G Cthulhu



Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1304
Location: Way, way off course.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
G Cthulhu



Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1304
Location: Way, way off course.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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". Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Abdullah the Enforcer



Joined: 26 Aug 2012
Posts: 42
Location: In a hole

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Confused
Quote:
"machine transaltion"
Confused

Didn't you mean "machine transaltation"? Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G Cthulhu



Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1304
Location: Way, way off course.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Abdullah the Enforcer wrote:
Confused
Quote:
"machine transaltion"
Confused

Didn't you mean "machine transaltation"? Confused



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... Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Abdullah the Enforcer



Joined: 26 Aug 2012
Posts: 42
Location: In a hole

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh! Abdullah guesses that you didn't mean "machine transaltation"! Bad Abdullah.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Willard



Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 158

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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". Wink


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
View user's profile Send private message
Pitarou



Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 896
Location: Narita, Japan

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Captain Willard



Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Posts: 158

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Japan All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2011 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Road2Spain - TEFL and Spanish with one year student visa
EBC