| 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"? < | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
