Interpreting Not Translation, US Supreme Court Rules

Is there a difference between interpreting from another language and translating? According to the US Supreme Court, the answer is a resounding “yes,” at least when it comes to lawsuits.

The Court’s ruling in the Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan case limits “translation” to the written word and “interpreting” to the spoken word. The case began with a Japanese baseball player, Kouichi Taniguchi, falling through a wooden deck at resort in the Marianas owned by Kan Pacific Saipan. He injured his leg, sued the resort owners for negligence, and lost. According to the Court Interpreters Act of 1978, under American law the winner in a lawsuit is allowed to force the loser to pay the costs of “interpretation.”

The definition of interpretation came under scrutiny as Kan Pacific Saipan tried to force Mr. Taniguchi to pay them back over $5,000 for the cost of having some court documents translated into Japanese. Mr. Taniguchi’s legal team argued that since the translation was written instead of oral, it was not covered under the Court Interpreters Act.

As the New York Times reports, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed, with Judge Richard Posner writing, “Robert Fagles made famous translations into English of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid, but no one would refer to him as an English-language ‘interpreter’ of these works.”

The Supreme Court also agreed, ruling that losing parties are only required to pay for oral interpreters and not for document translation, with Judge Samuel Alito joking that  since the opinion was only issued in English, “Anybody who wants to read it in another language will have to pay to have it translated, not interpreted.”

Frankly, it seems silly to include oral interpreting and exclude written translation. The legal system is complex, and both interpreting and translation are often necessary to make it accessible to all parties. This Supreme Court ruling may hew to the letter of the law, but it doesn’t seem in keeping with its spirit.

As a New York Times editorial noted:

“Federal judges have long included document translators in that definition, Justice Ginsburg said, to put “written words within the grasp of parties, jurors, and judges.” That’s still the more convincing interpretation.”

Photo Credit: AttributionNo Derivative Works Some rights reserved by laura padgett

Kouichi Taniguchi s
3 replies
  1. Business English translations
    Business English translations says:

    First time I read about this trial on some other blog. I’m happy now that the case reached the verdict and the outcome is great for one reason. I can expect now the similar interpretation in the Polish law system. I’m charged for “translations” and “interpretations” as well. If officially they are two seperate, different things, the tax regulations should apply only to translations. Great, thanks for sharing.

    Reply
  2. yellow pages monroe la
    yellow pages monroe la says:

    As more and more online marketers turn to paid advertising such as PPC, banner ads and solo ads to promote their products and services, it is vitally important to study David Ogilvy’s words of wisdom
    on advertising. Messages can easily be conveyed through aerial means that
    develops a desire for making purchases. The large hoardings cost much higher
    than the smaller or medium ones.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] TV: A Peek Into Another World – Part 1 Interview with Lluís Cavallé, interpreter for Guardiola Interpreting Not Translation, US Supreme Court Rules The Trouble With Paying our Translators so Quickly! Linguistic debate over the Polish EURO 2012 […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *