How to Translate Apology and Non-apology in Legal Contexts: A Linguistic Analysis of Potentially Serious “Subtle Mistranslation” in Japan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Rendering equivalency in the translation of apologies is a perennial difficulty for court interpreters, especially given the likely involvement of cross-cultural differences with regard to remorse, since they may or may not imply admissions of guilt. This article discusses translations during the 2009 Japanese trial of an English-speaking defendant that appeared subtly to shift the defendant’s ‘non-apologies’ and ‘semi-apologies’ toward ‘apologies’. The difference between the expression “I felt bad” used by the defendant and the Japanese apologetic expression used by the translator is explained with reference to the pragmatic notions of speech acts, presuppositions, and implicature. Such pragmatically inaccurate translations highlight the difficulty of the court interpreter’s job, and show that judges and attorneys should be sensitive to the judgement calls that interpreters inevitably make and to the possibility that the translations they receive may convey erroneous implications.

Original languageEnglish
JournalInternational Journal for the Semiotics of Law
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2019 Jan 1

Fingerprint

interpreter
Japan
linguistics
speech act
guilt
translator
cultural difference
speaking
pragmatics
Linguistic Analysis
Mistranslation
Apology
Court Interpreters

Keywords

  • Apology
  • Court interpreting
  • Implicature
  • Presupposition
  • Speech act

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Law

Cite this

@article{ca6a8a818fa2401f87737f1cd727754b,
title = "How to Translate Apology and Non-apology in Legal Contexts: A Linguistic Analysis of Potentially Serious “Subtle Mistranslation” in Japan",
abstract = "Rendering equivalency in the translation of apologies is a perennial difficulty for court interpreters, especially given the likely involvement of cross-cultural differences with regard to remorse, since they may or may not imply admissions of guilt. This article discusses translations during the 2009 Japanese trial of an English-speaking defendant that appeared subtly to shift the defendant’s ‘non-apologies’ and ‘semi-apologies’ toward ‘apologies’. The difference between the expression “I felt bad” used by the defendant and the Japanese apologetic expression used by the translator is explained with reference to the pragmatic notions of speech acts, presuppositions, and implicature. Such pragmatically inaccurate translations highlight the difficulty of the court interpreter’s job, and show that judges and attorneys should be sensitive to the judgement calls that interpreters inevitably make and to the possibility that the translations they receive may convey erroneous implications.",
keywords = "Apology, Court interpreting, Implicature, Presupposition, Speech act",
author = "Sachiko Shudo",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11196-019-09643-2",
language = "English",
journal = "International Journal for the Semiotics of Law",
issn = "0952-8059",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How to Translate Apology and Non-apology in Legal Contexts

T2 - A Linguistic Analysis of Potentially Serious “Subtle Mistranslation” in Japan

AU - Shudo, Sachiko

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Rendering equivalency in the translation of apologies is a perennial difficulty for court interpreters, especially given the likely involvement of cross-cultural differences with regard to remorse, since they may or may not imply admissions of guilt. This article discusses translations during the 2009 Japanese trial of an English-speaking defendant that appeared subtly to shift the defendant’s ‘non-apologies’ and ‘semi-apologies’ toward ‘apologies’. The difference between the expression “I felt bad” used by the defendant and the Japanese apologetic expression used by the translator is explained with reference to the pragmatic notions of speech acts, presuppositions, and implicature. Such pragmatically inaccurate translations highlight the difficulty of the court interpreter’s job, and show that judges and attorneys should be sensitive to the judgement calls that interpreters inevitably make and to the possibility that the translations they receive may convey erroneous implications.

AB - Rendering equivalency in the translation of apologies is a perennial difficulty for court interpreters, especially given the likely involvement of cross-cultural differences with regard to remorse, since they may or may not imply admissions of guilt. This article discusses translations during the 2009 Japanese trial of an English-speaking defendant that appeared subtly to shift the defendant’s ‘non-apologies’ and ‘semi-apologies’ toward ‘apologies’. The difference between the expression “I felt bad” used by the defendant and the Japanese apologetic expression used by the translator is explained with reference to the pragmatic notions of speech acts, presuppositions, and implicature. Such pragmatically inaccurate translations highlight the difficulty of the court interpreter’s job, and show that judges and attorneys should be sensitive to the judgement calls that interpreters inevitably make and to the possibility that the translations they receive may convey erroneous implications.

KW - Apology

KW - Court interpreting

KW - Implicature

KW - Presupposition

KW - Speech act

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071335225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071335225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11196-019-09643-2

DO - 10.1007/s11196-019-09643-2

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85071335225

JO - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law

JF - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law

SN - 0952-8059

ER -